deaux

That should not be rewarded, it should be punished. Ironically, it's even more harmful than voting in favor of it when it's going to pass. It's literally the worst thing one can do, because it muddies the waters.

The very few who clearly would vote against it even if it might not pass, yes, those should be rewarded.

When in power, did they do something against the NSA blatantly breaking the law, illegally surveilling hundreds of millions of citizens? No.

Did the 99.9% of them not named Lina Khan do something to uphold the existing antitrust laws? No.

Did they time and time again change the rule of law to suit corporate donors, lobbyists, megacorps? Yes.

Did they jail people who were actually trying to help uphold the rule of law by reporting on illegal torture facilities? Yes. [0]

> Then a Labour MP has a complex mortgage arrangement and misses paying a few thousand pounds of tax. And people come in with 'they're all the same'.

Arresting thousands of grandmothers for holding up some cardboard, and defending it, is enough to show that they're representing the same interests. How much privatization did they actually undo over the last 30 years? Right, none, they either directly aided it or looked the other way.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou#2012_indictment_...

Luckily there are other things that all reasonable people will find it hard to disagree with: The Obama government crackdown of Occupy Wall Street and his appointment of one of the fathers of the CIA torture program as NatSec Advisor, who promptly went on to jail whistleblowers of torture with Obama vouching for it.

It's because the overwhelming majority of people, including the large majority of 'educated, "informed', Democrat voters', remain even as of 2026 far too tribal and addicted to cheering for the team they've been cheering for.

Another thing is that facing this reality is very scary. It's much easier to sleep at night if you believe that most of it isn't a show, including most of the tribe they've been voting for. The alternative is to admit that most of it is all one big theatre, and they've been scammed for their whole lives. That's another thing, admitting one has been scammed is painful and makes many feel like they're stupid, that they should've known better. Most much rather just not think about it too hard and believe "in the good of people".

In a sense I'm surprised that you're surprised as it's quite basic and well-studied human psychology.

Of course in reality the situation is even worse, as pessimizer aptly points out in a sibling comment.

I'm not saying this out of anti-religion, I believe religion can be a force for good and often is. But it shows that yes, this is possible. Also see things physicists, and especially physicians, believed for centuries.

> There isn't one adult who looks at this massive centralization and sees that it goes against the very principle of the thing?

There's a growing number who do. But the reason why they didn't get much attention for most of a century, and as such what made the fantasies of Hayek become mainstream, is of course tightly connected to the fact that it's the one that just "happens" to be the one most favorable to these mega corporations and their friends in financial and political institutions. It's clearly not a coincidence at all.

It's also just an incestuous cycle of professors teaching students who end up being professors who teach students. Takes something to break that.

Of course the things you mentioned further accelerate walmartization. But that's the chicken and the egg. The government does bailouts and prints cheap money because the corporations do exactly what I said: the winners (who arise naturally thanks to economies of scale) will put their resources into gaining these things.

Keeping a market free would require magnitudes more regulation than right now - the opposite of what free market proponents advocate for.

Currently the page is a lot of slop text without the main question most people who know what ADRs are and might be interested will have: what are the main differences and what do you see as the main advantages over other existing systems that use ADRs, the most popular one being Matt Pocock's?

You need to realize that there are thousands of projects like these. Most people who are in your target audience is already using something similar, so it needs to be instantly clear what the difference is. You've got 5 seconds and having to scroll through slop takes up most of those. Just being realistic here.

It clearly is an enemy state. The US, that is.

B-but the EU can't do that!

It absolutely can. Just like it can push Chat Control down everyone's throats even though if you held a referendum on it it would be voted down (no, most Jacques the plumbers on the street don't want mass surveillance even if it's "against crime").

They are the minimum.

- April 25, 2026

Nope, don't worry, if you clicked on the linked you'd see OpenAI has already banned this person's account. Chinese models you say? See today's new Kimi release which intentionally had all cyber-related data removed from its training data. The window is already rapidly closing and will soon be completely closed.

If Arthur Andersen hadn't been indicted, it's possible it would have continued as a company and gotten away with it, at the very least much more likely than the above three.

2002, Arthur Andersen gets indicted for deliberately aiding Enron in cooking the books. 2003, Bush DoJ's attorney general binds prosecutors to effectively always settle corporate cases without convictions. So nowadays you have companies like Boeing murdering 300+ without real consequences. It's a real shame.

"Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers... we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."

October 2000: Google adds ads.

[0] https://research.google/pubs/the-anatomy-of-a-large-scale-hy...

No, no it is not. If Google didn't love these changes, they'd do what Apple does with the EU. Malicious compliance, or at worst, only complying there. The LLM providers do the same.

Google loves, wants, and has instigated these changes. They are not being rolled out because some governments are asking for them. Those governments would never have specifically asked for these measures anyway; they'd have asked "can you reduce these scams?". And if Google had wanted to act on this, they wouldn't have done this either because they know that the overwhelming majority of these scams are from Play Store apps or from ads, often through AdMob itself, never passing through non-store apps. Those are a sliver of scams.

This is propaganda with zero backing in evidence.

Flying more is a thing we are choosing to do, we could just not do that.