skwirl

Do you own argcomplete, backoff, certifi, cffi, charset-normalizer, cryptography, google-auth, google-auth-oauthlib, idna, markdown-it-py, mdurl, msal, oauthlib, pyasn1, pyasn1-modules, pycparser, pygments, pyjwt, python-dotenv, pyyaml, requests, requests-oauthlib, rich, rich-argparse, shellingham, and urllib3?

I'm having a really hard time seeing how this letter could conceivably be perceived as persuasive. In fact, this letter makes it clear that the people behind it are seeking to maintain their previously entrenched power, prestige, and control over a field of human knowledge. And they are going about it in a futile and debasing way.

This is out of date. They didn’t like to be referred to as gambling companies when it was just daily fantasy sports. There was legitimate debate as to how much of daily fantasy sports was skill and that mattered to its legality in many states. There’s no debate over whether sportsbook betting is gambling.

This was something I fully realized when I got married. Where is the official record that we are married? It’s a piece of paper in a filing cabinet in a small town two states away. Unless I provide a copy of my license, there is no way for anyone to see for sure if I’m married except to go to every jurisdiction nationally and see if they have a marriage license that matches my info. You could try to infer it from something like tax returns, but the IRS has never actually validated that I’m married. They just take my word for it unless they have a reason to be suspicious.

If one or both of the two who just got married wants to change their name? The process is downright bizarre. There is no central name database you go update. You just send off forms to a bunch of places saying “this is my name now,” some with a copy of your marriage license.

Very strange system IMO.

Oracle also has a vested interest in defending an expansive view of intellectual property rights. They lean very heavily on litigation as part of their business model and will want to reserve the right to sue anyone generating software that competes with theirs when the model may have been trained on anything they hold the copyright to.

If they held here that it is OK to use LLM generated code for OpenJDK it could kill these cases later as they will have established that they believe it is fair use.

The vast majority of what I see out there is relentlessly negative about AI. It is kind of absurd to call this the "alternative" unless the implication is that the rest of AI skeptical writing is not "well-argued."

> The real question is, who can verify that what the AI built is good and true? Recently, there's a lot of talk about AI allegedly finding security flaws in software. That is an unsubstantiated claim. As such, it would need to be verified by a non-machine, and arguably, the verification process would require the same amount of effort or more than would be required to find the issue to begin with.

Came for the bad AI take, stayed for the P=NP claim.

It is crazy to me that any parent of young children would let their kids watch YouTube videos on their own. Maybe this happened gradually enough that some parents didn't notice, but we had our first kid a couple years ago and I nope'd out of YouTube pretty quickly when I saw what was there. Even the channels known for being good - which we occasionally let the kids watch as long as we were present and choosing the videos - started to clearly optimize for engagement over quality, and so now we're done with it entirely. The stuff there for "kids" legitimately horrifies me.

You have joined a year and a half ago, have low activity, and 74 karma.

OP has been here for over a decade and has loads of activity.

You aren't in a position to post this.

This is even more misleading. You have to eat to live, but absolutely not all water usage for food is mandatory.

If you gave me a budget of how much water I could "use" water every year, and I was close to going over, I could easily pay for my annual AI use just by changing what I eat for lunch on a day or two. I could pay for years of AI use just by forgoing buying a new pair of jeans.

The water argument has always felt so intellectually dishonest to me because it's never approached from the perspective of "hey, we're using too much water, how can we conserve it?" If we approached it from that perspective, reducing AI usage would not even crack the the top 100 list of things we would do. But that's not the goal of the water argument, because it quite obviously actually has nothing to do with water.

This is a HN comment reply masquerading as a novel submission.

It is wild that people are still posting this kind of thing in 2026. Some folks really are living in a different world.

We’re reaching “Don’t Look Up” levels of denial about the impact of AI on this site.

This thread is a great discussion and I have kept coming back to it over the last couple days to read more of it when I have a chance. I’m kind of disappointed that it artificially ended. I think at some useful comment threshold level you just have to let it go.