lowkey_

They do. They're getting increasingly cautious with these things, too- Claude won't help you reverse engineer much anymore apparently.

Hackers are almost certainly using open-source AI for this.

As someone who loved Arc a lot and is still using it, this is sad to see. It also annoys me because they had such a clear path to success with such a huge head start. I was rooting for them. It was obvious there was an opportunity to build a much better browser, but the team couldn't figure out how to bring those changes into a browser we knew and were familiar with.

From my POV, it was mostly a product & design leadership failure. Ironic, because the team had phenomenal design and product work individually. They took a cheap way out with building a second browser, lost most of their userbase, and in doing so, admitted that users didn't want what they were building the way they were building it. It wasn't magical or intuitive, or else it would've been fine to build into Arc.

But instead of doing the hard overarching product & design work and making the tough calls, to build that roadmap step-by-step and add the magic, they decided they couldn't reconcile these two ideas into one, and needed two browsers.

One anecdote: Despite sharing mutual investors and connections with them, I never even heard back on any feature ideas or bug reports sent to the founder.

This is research conducted and published by an executive search firm in London, versus the mountains of actual academic studies somebody else linked on sentencing disparities.

Respectfully, do you think you're shifting goalposts?

Your argument was that women were more punished by law. The studies (as someone else linked) show that women are less punished by law.

You switched your argument to "powerful women," which would require a lot of evidence, because it is contrary to the statistical expectation from the previous data, that women of all kinds would be less punished by law than their male counterparts.

Now, your argument and the study you linked just refers to how many women get promoted and the attention and criticism they get, which is separate from our legal system.

Someone said it would "quickly be illegal to launch satellites without permits", then you/they found out that is already illegal, and you nitpicked about who you need permission from.

It feels like there's no feasible solution here that would please you guys.

Should we all democratically vote on every satellite launched into space individually? It's already our elected representatives that approve it.

Europe is too well-run (even the poorer parts) for Starlink to be as relevant.

Having lived in Central America, imagine all the workers that are laying the internet cables going back at night and digging them up to sell. A government that, 50% of the time, won't actually build anything when given the funding, and usually can't get the funding anyways. Plus, in some parts, weather can result in internet going out and, given the government, staying out for quite a while.

It's a fair point that those in poorer places will have less money, but for instance, Mexico's Starlink pricing is pretty standard, it's like 50-100 EUR per month. They pay it anyways because they need it, and because it's the best option.

Starlink is a great decentralization for anyone living under corrupt dysfunctional governments, where they can't rely on that centralized system.

Looks super cool and love the idea!

I saw Clerk and noticed that it says that they have verified 250 months runway. Maybe true but sounds crazy high.

Maybe if there's a specific article a verification is attributed to, you could add it being cited?

Anyways thanks for making this.

IANAL but civil statute of limitations is based on when the prosecuting party reasonably discovered they were wronged and had legal recourse, not when the event happened. It is entirely possible to debate when that was in this case.

IANAL but a proud American haha, and we're very specific on not allowing ex post facto laws per our constitution. It would be a huge avenue for abuse of power by the government against the people.

The caveat I added to my initial comment that you also mentioned was that they could try to find a relevant existing law and retrofit it, e.g. general securities laws, and say that this is a securities market and so this has always been illegal — but it's very unlikely and I doubt it would work. Far, far more likely that we pass explicit laws about this.

> “If you commit insider trading on Kalshi, that can and will at some point be a federal crime. It is a federal crime,”

Am I misunderstanding? It seems like two different statements he always conflates.

If it becomes a federal crime at some point, it will become illegal from that point — you can't prosecute people for acts committed before they were crimes.

The only way that this could be a federal crime right now is if the government starts prosecuting it under existing laws without any changes. I don't see that as likely.

I had a pretty poor experience as a startup on Vanta. Maybe this is my own ignorance, but I told them when our contract was to renew that we do NOT want to renew. We were an early-stage startup soon to shut down and didn't need it. We never touched Vanta for 10 months before this, we never got SOC-2 (it was deprioritized). Not a single login in 10 months.

Nevertheless, they said it was: too late to opt out, that it can't be canceled or postponed, and then kept emailing us endlessly and sending to collections to pay them another $10K platform fee for the next year (more than we had in the company bank account).

I understand this with large corporations, but I don't think they're a good fit for startups.

I've put a lot of thought into hiring in this era, and what I've personally found works the best is:

Let them use their preferred setup and AI to the full extent they want, and evaluate their output and their methodology. Ask questions of "why did you choose X over Y", especially if you're skeptical, and see their reasoning. Ask what they'd do next with more time.

It's clear when a candidate can build an entire working product, end-to-end, in <1 day vs. someone who struggles to create a bug-free MVP and would take a week for the product.

In addition to the technical interview, hiring them on a trial basis is the absolute best if possible.

Taste and technical understanding of goals and implementation to reach those goals is the biggest differentiator now. AI can handle all the code and syntax, but it's not great at architecture yet - it defaults to what's mid if not otherwise instructed.

Agreed on the bimodal, but I don't think this is junior vs. senior - I think it's just competence being rooted out.

The majority of engineers, in my hiring experience, failed very simple tests pre-AI. In a world where anyone can code, they're no better than previously non-technical people. The CS degree is no longer protection.

The gap between average and the best engineers now, though, is even higher. The best engineers can visualize the whole architecture in their head, and describe exactly what they want to an AI - their productivity is multiplied, and they rarely get slowed down.

While this could be done by junior or senior, I think junior usually has the slight advantage in being more AI-native and knowing how to effectively prompt and work with AI, though not always.

Not the OP but curious why you think so?

If this gives an extra 1% per se, I imagine that is more worth it to a company fresh off a large fundraise with a ton of cash in the bank.

Startups otherwise are lean and won't hold enough cash to get a meaningful return from the 1%.

I'd challenge that if you think they're fearmongering but don't see what they can gain from it (I agree it shows no obvious benefit for them), there's a pretty high probability they're not fearmongering.