deaux

I believe they have agreements with both OpenAI and Google. That's why Claude does not source Reddit but GPT does.

> More and more they're going to get blocked from doing so via "human" channels

How? Companies have been trying this for the last 2 decades. Its effectiveness has been rapidly declining.

The evidence is that not once when they were in control they did something that went directly against these things. Under those periods these things either stayed stable or indeed got even worse. That's overwhelming evidence.

Unfortunately he didn't talk about this..

No, you still don't get it. There is ample evidence that the large majority of those 62 are only willing to do so if they're 100% sure it's going to pass anyway. This means their only goal is to gain brownie points, without actually supporting it.

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.

You're right, but bringing up the assassination of a terrorist just isn't convincing to a lot of people, regardless of it should be.

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.

Unfortunately they have, on the key things that everything else flows from. That doesn't mean that can't change at some point. That would take sizeable evidence that isn't there yet, though.

"entire wing" makes it sound very meaningful for a group that has had no effective power for the last 10+ years.

I'm sure mitchellh will check out this comment section at some point - any updates on the move away from Github? I don't really see anything that's changed, but maybe it's behind the scenes. I was pretty excited on your initial post about it but it's been a while.

> I'm surprised so many people miss this dynamic on so many topics.

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.

This makes it sound as if LLM tools weren't prevalent inside MS yet by June. Is this really true? I'd be shocked if so.

Dozens of different religions have millions of followers. They're generally not compatible with each other. Many of the followers incredibly intelligent and accomplished in their fields.

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.

I don't see why Walmart wouldn't get this big even without centralized banking, bailouts, and hard money (say gold convertibility), thanks to economies of scale. In the late 1800s you had Standard Oil. That didn't need any of those things to arise.

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.