roarcher

I actually laughed out loud when I reached the end of the article decrying "bulky" headsets and finally saw their alternative. Reminds me of the giant egg thing that Darth Vader lives in.

Do you mind if I ask how you find customers?

I've freelanced before and always ended going back to a "real job" because I either couldn't find clients, or when I did, they didn't know what they wanted and weren't prepared to pay what it would actually cost.

No worries. It has actually always been my impression that Oxide does good work, even if I may think your hiring process is a bit on the onerous side. Keep up the good work!

Great, I'm glad to hear it.

> You do know

No, I did not know when I posted that comment. steveklabnik's comment was posted concurrently with mine, and I did not feel the need to scour the whole thread in case there happened to be an answer to this specific question from an Oxide employee. But thank you for the data point.

I understand that, but it's still possible to devote up to 9 hours to this and get nothing in return. And maybe not just possible, but likely. We don't know how eagerly their pipeline rejects candidates. Every candidate has to take that gamble.

9 hours just seems excessive. Other companies have "funnel" hiring processes like this and still manage to do it in 3 hours instead of 9.

> You are going to potentially spend a major portion of your life there - so it isn't that weird to set aside a full day to get to know them.

Right, but you're not just doing it with them, you're potentially doing it with lots of companies you're applying to. It would be untenable to devote that much time to every prospect. Oxide can only do it because most other companies don't.

There are lots of axes on which to judge a company so I wouldn't write off Oxide for this alone, but it doesn't speak well of their respect for their candidates' time.

No.

> they can't unilaterally slow down without essentially destroying their company

According to them, the alternative is destroying the world.

They made up a shitty excuse to regulate the competition without thinking through what it implies about them. That's all this is. Let's not help them make even more excuses.

You think it's cringe because it was created by Trump (Musk wasn't involved, not sure where you got that).

The Space Force's role was previously split across military branches with overlapping budgets and poor communication. And since space duties weren't the primary focus of any of those branches, they weren't taken seriously and career tracks within them were stunted, making it hard to attract talent.

Hate Trump all you want, but if your analysis stops at "cringe", consider that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

I guess I thought the sarcasm was obvious because I can't imagine a serious person looking at that pelican and considering it proof of AGI. But you're right, this is the internet, anything is possible.

Pretty sure the parent comment was sarcasm.

> Can you name some?

Blake Lemoine comes to mind, or Richard Dawkins [1] if you want someone with a weightier name.

> I think youve created a type of strawman

Why are the only objections to what I said about proponents of AI consciousness coming from people who are not proponents but insist that I'm talking about them? And how does someone else's inability to understand the meaning of the word "proponent" make me guilty of creating a strawman?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/05/richard-d...

I agree.

No. The word "proponent" means you're in favor of the position, i.e. you think they're conscious. If you don't then you're not a proponent, and I wasn't talking about you. The word you're looking for might be "agnostic".

And AI consciousness proponents should do the same.

Positioning the death ray's UI so you have to stand in front of the death ray to use it is a design choice worthy of ACME.

You're surprised that people want evidence instead of blindly trusting (supposedly) common knowledge?

If it's true it should be trivial to provide said evidence.

I want it to tell me if it thinks I'm wrong, sure. I do not want it act on that opinion explicitly against my wishes.

And in this case, I was not wrong. The "recommended" solution was Opus 5's typical overengineering for a use case that would never be needed.

I used the Claude CLI a lot until recently. A couple weeks ago I told Opus 5 to do something different from its "recommended" idea when planning a feature, and it straight up told me that my idea was wrong and went ahead and implemented its own instead.

I'm used to machines malfunctioning, but having one willfully disobey me, and even with a touch of disrespect, is just...what a time to be alive.

> In general, the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are.

In general, the more senior the employee, the more equity they have in the company.

I would love to be able to trust that a doctor knows more about my problem than I do, but every time I see one they clearly haven't even read the information I just told the nurse 15 minutes ago.

> you're declaring my thoughts meaningless

I said irrelevant, because your argument does not contradict the point that was being made. Your first comment was a list of scenarios that literally had nothing do with what you were replying to. And your "superset" comment was trying to shoot down a general observation about human behavior by pointing out that it isn't a mathematically rigorous model, as if it was ever intended or claimed to be. It is not my fault that nonsense and pedantry are irrelevant, but I'm sorry to inform you that they are.

> a conversation you admit to not understanding

I understand perfectly what you're saying. The source of my confusion is your insistence that it matters. It's like I told you that apples are edible and you keep insisting that they categorically aren't because some people don't like them, and also occasionally one of them might have a worm in it.

> trying to push me out of the conversation

My brother in Christ, all I want is for you to just stay in the conversation for once.

Anyway, this is pretty firmly in "playing chess with a pigeon" territory now. Have a good one.

Man what the hell are you even talking about? Nearly every one of your comments in this thread has been some sort of non-sequitur or is replying to an argument that nobody made. Your only fully coherent comment was the one with the superset idea, which boils down to "you can't say people who vote for communism and stand to gain from it are self-serving, because one of them might happen to be a saint whose only concern is the common good".

I'm getting tired of having to direct the conversation back to the actual topic. It's okay to just bow out when you're wrong, you don't have to continuously derail a conversation with bullshit just because you're out of your depth. You're not fooling anyone with it.

It's laughably naive to think that any significant number of people who vote for a system they think will personally benefit them are in fact doing so purely out of principle, and not at all because it will benefit them. However, as long as one such person exists, Group A is indeed a superset of self-serving people, and you are therefore correct in the most technical and irrelevant sense. Congratulations.

You seem to be missing the point. The person you originally replied to said that those who vote for communism for their own personal gain are self serving. Let's call those people Group A.

You then listed a bunch of people who might vote for it for some non-self-serving reason, let's call them Group B.

Your comment implies that the existence of Group B makes Group A not-self-serving, when in fact it is as irrelevant to Group A's motives as my grandmother being a bicycle.

> Btw, it's a bit rude to pattern-match a thought-terminating cliche followed by declaring your point of view to be objectively true.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

What if my grandmother was a bicycle? None of these change the fact that voting for a system to move resources from others to yourself is self serving.

You can debate whether it's justifiable or not, but it is self serving by definition.

I enjoy HN's brand of cynicism as much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous. Tobacco companies say that because governments require them to. They are not putting photos of diseased lungs on their cartons to "shock investors into buying their stock", whatever the hell that even means.

> Most open source fans are also hostile to copyrights existence and are openly IP abolitionists.

Open source licenses are only enforceable because of copyright law. How are you going to enforce GPL3 when you have no legal authority to say what people are allowed to do with your code?

The rocket they 3D print at the end isn't even the same as the one in the game. It has a curved body, but the game asset is a cylinder.

Even if all that is true, why shouldn't people be able to joke about it? Your sentiment is borderline AI worship.