ekjhgkejhgk

Whaaaa? When you run something with the goal of making a profit that ends up costing more than when you run it without the goal of making profit? Hows that possible?

I'm confused because I don't imagine the Claude Code team as particularly productive. They certainly don't standout compared to pre-AI times.

> Ok, so it actually flies.

LOL. Enron Musk collect 1000x 250k pre-orders 10 years ago for a car that doesn't exist.

Now he made a stunt (doesn't fly) and the fanbois go "ooo it flies". And he'll collect 1000x 250k more. Great return on investment, truly genius businessman.

I guess I"m the only person with complaints here.

I tried opencode 2 with my locally hosted llama, and I noticed that llama is always producing stuff even when I close opencode. I suspect it's the backend still doing stuff with the frontend isn't displaying, but I have no way of investigating. So I'm sticking with 1.9 for now.

What's wrong with WordPress?

Mullvad browser. It's Tor browser minus connection to Tor.

> but it's clear he hasn't spent much time around average people.

Have YOU? It's obvious to me that his example is a rhetorical device which you're taking literally. Do you also realize he's not talking about an actual cocktail? You need to get a diagnosis ASAP.

> Lobbying is not corruption. All interest groups should have the ability to talk to lawmakers and present their viewpoints.

If you get to "talk to lawmakers" by giving them money, it is corruption.

Why is this interesting?

Ooof I don't want these two to break up.

Mullvad browser is my favorite browser, and it's tor browser minus connection to tor.

This isn't about physical labour vs mental labour, it's about the dynamics of delivering a product vs contributing to a community.

For example, a software engineer is like a car mechanic or a coal miner. None of those are anything like a mathematician.

The person you're rallying against isn't me, it's an imaginary hypocritical person which exists in your mind. I do mental labour, I welcome AI developments hard, and I still think TT is 100% correct.

If you're considering an individual, maybe this makes sense.

But if you're consdiering a community, this falls apart. The maths community has universities, has professors who are paid, has students which are getting their degrees for varying reasons, it has conferences, has publications, papers, projects etc etc, all of which will get some negative impact some AI.

You know that line "when a measurement becomes a target it ceases to be a useful measurement". This line holds up to different degrees for various measurements and targets. For maths it holds up very well. The goal is "contribute to make the world better by increasing humanity's understanding of maths" and the measurement, which by evaluating an individual on it we're turning into a target, is "how much does the individual publish new findings". Measurement turned target holds up great. It's almost impossible to publish new findings and not contribute to humanity's understanding of maths. But with AI these two are being decoupled. You can produce lots of new findings, but the community is saturated and they don't get assimilated into humanity's understanding. Why do individuals use AI then? Because you've made the target "how much does the individual publish new findings" and they have to compete or lose.

Just the other day I was thinking, if unsupervised maths will descend into "oops we found a bug in some code, branch XYZ of maths is no longer true".

> The much more interesting recent news IMO is that Google is not allowing (non-Samsung) OEMs to sell devices with GrapheneOS:

Every time I've said on HN "I don't trust google with anything, not with software or hardware" someone shows up and goes "bUt ItS oPeN sOuRcE".

Folks, just because something is or isn't open source, the story doesn't end there. It doesn't there aren't levers of power which may be invisible to you.

I was right, as usual.

"I think we know how to solve power, dyson spheres"

closed