It's been building for a long time; it's not recent per se, just accelerated.
2025 showed that you can't just go "ok, it's over now, we'll go back to business as usual" (like I know the limp-wristed Dems will want to do) or it'll repeat after every other election until it's successful. You just cannot have this many people constantly being convinced they live in this alternate reality for much longer without civilization collapse.
But I think it's gone too far and we're witnessing the fall of the empire in real-time. I'm just hoping that fall won't screw up the rest of the world too much, but I'm pretty sure it will.
More to the point, it's the collapse of the carefully balanced entente around things like WMD and war crimes that will be our undoing.
Recent events have brought this into sharp focus.
This is really the glue that holds it all together -- that we and our allies haven't even had to think about these things for our entire lives up until now.
I hate to be hyperbolic, but I fear that fear of these things will soon become a looming presence in our lives. For the rest of our lives. And kids' lives. And grandkids' lives.
No we got to this point because the hope for a better future evaporated. People are thirsty for answers. Any answer to this question will have a big following.
Gambling, influencing, day trading, kick out the immigrants, anything works as long as it can promise to change your life for the better.
Quite the opposite actually. Democrats have been so complacent with the proto-fascists for so long, that republicans will now justify murdering a mother in broad daylight, filmed under 3 angles clearly showing she is fearing for her life. The solution to fascism is not compromise and weakness.
Please know there are people across the aisle that view it differently. When things calm down, talk with them and learn. Nobody wins when we insist the world is only as we alone view it.
I talked to these people minutes ago, on the thread about the murder. Trumpists are finding ways to rationalize this assassination. Just like they did Jan 6, the bombings of fishing boats near Venezuela, the other exactions ICE committed, Trump being Epstein's closest friend, etc.
Then I listened to the Vice President claiming she was an "unhinged left-wing lunatic", that she had been radicalized and that she was trying to hurt the ICE agent, and thus she deserved to be shot. A complete, abject lie trying to justify this murder, when everyone saw in the videos she was clearly trying to escape, and no agent was on her path.
EDIT: looking at your comment history, it seems like you are trying to justify her assassination too. We are not friends, no friend of mine attempts to rationalize away the murder of innocents by masked brownshirts. I hope you can escape this death cult sometimes soon, then maybe we could find common ground.
My aunt is a republican lobbyist. She is also a drunk. She regularly texts my family things like how my other aunt, who is disabled, should kill herself rather than take medicaid money. She has told her daughter, who has attempted suicide twice, that she'd be better off dead than be bisexual. She texts us things about how every somali person in the US is going to get what is coming to them.
How should I talk with her to learn things?
Frankly, I'm absolutely fucking sick of leaders within the GOP saying that a woman is a domestic terrorist trained in using cars as weapons after an ICE goon murders her. Call me when the republicans send Trump to the gallows. Then I'll consider opening my heart up.
No. Democrats always take the high road and what has that gotten them? A fascist regime and a political movement (MAGA) that floods the zone with bullshit when the gestapo does something bad.
Republicans stormed the capitol, killed police officers, and delayed the election process. What happened to them? Some lackeys got put in jail, and no one at the top faced consequences. Trump then pardoned all of those criminals for their service. Crickets from MAGAts and Republicans.
Laying your weapon down while someone keeps hitting literally just results in you ceasing to exist. Trump and all of his cabinet members are openly vile and called the woman who was shot a domestic terrorist before her body was even cold. Same situation with Charlie Kirk: they were calling the shooter a radical leftist before the body was cold. Meanwhile Dems are asked to disavow every action if it's even somewhat related to them and to "talk and learn"... yeah no that window has passed.
Hold your side accountable for the insane lies, corruption, and awful things they do first then maybe we can talk about reaching across the aisle.
EDIT: stop deluding yourself into thinking you're a "center right" voter too. It's obvious from previous interactions and your post history that you're drinking the MAGA koolaid.
The onus is on you to explain how Obama's terms are relevant to what ICE is doing now. Did Obama:
- post AI videos mocking immigrants?
- open a facility called Alligator Alcatraz?
- say "homegrowns are next" when talking about deportations?
- immediately call victims of ICE violence domestic terrorists?
- deport people to a labor camp (CECOT)?
- send ICE into cities of his political opponents to cause property damage, stoke tensions, detain people, and execute them? (see: Chicago, Minneapolis, etc.)
- allow ICE commanders to throw up Nazi salutes?
There is no decency; cruelty and theatrics are the point. This admin is on a revenge tour and is using ICE as their secret police force. If that's not obvious by now, you should get out of the MAGA bubble and improve your media diet.
The ACLU called Obama a monster, and they call Trump a monster, too.
Obama set the precedent, I agree Trump added childish and cruel rhetoric. ( But the use of ICE is the same with Obama and Trump. )
I do not agree on Nazi actions, etc. That’s exaggeration and it’s not useful.
So do we agree that on the deployment and tactics of ICE that Obama and Trump are roughly equal? If you don’t condemn Obama, is it fair to say you don’t condemn the use of ICE to deport?
> But the use of ICE is the same with Obama and Trump.
> So do we agree that on the deployment and tactics of ICE that Obama and Trump are roughly equal
No, they're not the same as I've demonstrated. I'll ask again: did Obama do those things above? You can keep pretending that "ICE is only there to deport people" but as reality has shown, that's not true. They show up to events to intimidate, they tear gas and shoot protestors, etc. all the while cabinet members cover for their abhorrent behavior because the cruelty is the point.
This conversation is obviously going nowhere so I'll let you keep living in fantasy land and obfuscating with "but Obama!!" like usual. Maybe you'll repent one day.
Look at the points I mentioned and tell me how they're the same. I don't contest that law enforcement does awful things with their power, but this administration emboldens them is the difference.
> I do not agree on Nazi actions, etc. That’s exaggeration and it’s not useful.
What? You disagree with the actions but it's also exaggerated?
> deployment and tactics of ICE that Obama and Trump are roughly equal
Answer this for me: did Obama send ICE agents into cities as retribution? Did he send ICE agents into schools, hospitals, protests, etc.[0]?
If ICE agents are known to abuse detainees, then why would you want them in sensitive areas? By that metric, these administrations are not even close to being the same.
It’s entirely possible to prosecute the heads of all of these horrific things into the stone age, comb through internal data and throw every agent who’s murdered someone in jail, and not punish everyday people who just cast a vote.
They already are. Playing nice and hoping the other side will come to their senses and return to normalcy doesn’t make sense when they’ve already shown you they will try to destroy you regardless.
I don't buy the 'both sides' POV except in the longest historical view. Right now it's just not true.
One team is a feckless collection of timid hesitators who is trying to defend a social welfare policy from 70 years ago, and the other team believes their volatile leader is infallible and will direct revenge at whatever they are pointed to by the latest 3am tweet.
>One team is a feckless collection of timid hesitators who is trying to defend a social welfare policy from 70 years ago
What is this referring to?
>and the other team believes their volatile leader is infallible and will direct revenge at whatever they are pointed to by the latest 3am tweet.
>It's just not the same.
What does this have to do with gp's claim about cycle of reprisals by both parties? It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
I was responding the effort to paint the two sides as equal.
The cycle-of-reprisals is a separate point. In a two-party system, transfer of power means change. The minority party will always paint that as reprisal, so if you judge by who-complains-the-loudest, they will look the same. The churn of claims and counter-claims by politicians in the media has become a game with very predictable behaviors.
But if you look at actions, IMO they behave very differently.
> What does this have to do with gp's claim about cycle of reprisals by both parties? It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
I think the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the last administration wasn't nearly retaliatory _enough_ after J6
>I think the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the last administration wasn't nearly retaliatory _enough_ after J6
Jailing Hitler sure stopped his movement in its tracks! Or maybe we should have gone even further and set a precedent for to jail people for decades for having "dangerous" political opinions?
While I agree that the question of "are we jailing this person for their political opinions" gets into skeevy areas, if we refuse to enforce laws just because elections and politics are involved we might as well not have any laws that involve elections and politics (and I don't think "lawlessness starts at the top" is a recipe for a healthy society).
> It can be simultaneously possible to admit that the leader of one party is more sane than the other, and to observe that both parties are engaging in cycles of retaliation when they get in power, and that egging on even more retaliation is going to make the situation worse.
Then I suppose the situation will get worse? I don't understand the point of your analysis. This isn't a situation where people are swatting away olive branches - the Trump administration works hard to ensure that their political opponents are furious at them. They repeatedly state, in a variety of contexts, that they have no interest in finding common ground with the other party: it's good that you're miserable if you don't agree with their political objectives, and if you get in their way you deserve to be shot.
There were hundreds of prosecutions. Then SCOTUS declared the president immune. Then the bad guy got reelected and pardoned everyone. Then started launched truly malicious prosecutions of political enemies. Cases which thankfully are dying due to lack of merit.
One side is doing all the bad things and the other is simply struggling to stop them. Being cynical helps nothing.
A consequence of that large political movement and its leaders is that numerous people have been murdered. MAGA can't wash its hands of the consequences of its beliefs and actions.
I'm curious why you edited your comment? To appear more rational while making irrational tropes?
> Only one side
If you're going to use that tired old trope, maybe Reddit is a more suitable
place for you. Thanks for reminding me to add it to my blocklist though.
Why is it impossible for most people (more specifically Americans in my experience) to act in good faith during political discussion? You can't even admit wrongdoing or poor phrasing without them twisting your words or deliberately misunderstanding you.
we just saw the biden admin not do that, and the polarization only grew. They very specifically slow walked their investigation into trump's treason, so they wouldnt have to Nuremberg him.
trump mind you, is nuremburging non-voters. they dont exactly have side beyond trying to work and eat
The two sides aren't remotely the same. One side has become authoritarian and shifted far to the right. The current administration is seeking to undermine liberal democracy to give the executive all the meaningful power to enact Christian nationalism. It's also a cult of personality where the president can do no wrong, and anyone who defies him gets sent death threats.
Trying and punishing members of the Trump administration for their crimes is not the same as sending people to concentration camps for having a color of skin that Miller hates.
It is not insightful to say "oh isn't this the same thing that the fascists are doing." It is anti-insight.
> Trying and punishing members of the Trump administration for their crimes is not the same...
Do you really believe that's being "vindictive", though? If so, why?
That's a big part of the problem: people characterize following the law as being "vindictive", and comparable to actual vindictiveness. It's a big part of why the Democrats have been so unwilling to hold anyone to account.
> It is not insightful to say "oh isn't this the same thing that the fascists are doing."
Wanting vindictiveness is absolutely the same thing the fascists are doing. Part of what I'm pointing out is that we should characterize the actions that are needed in a more rational way.
Not to discount physical infrastructure, but the world is quite digital these days and being at the absolute top of the software + associated techs economy is nothing to sniff at.
Is it though? Backends can be any language and there's a lot more variety there -- TS+node, Go, Python, Java. It's just .NET that's largely ignored for no real technical basis.
It really depends where you are. In the UK half the places seem to use .NET in some form or another.
I am pretty language agnostic and I am reasonably competent programming in C# (I worked with C# and VB.NET for about 15 years), Go, Python, TypeScript and C++ these days.
The issue with a lot of places that do C#/.NET stuff is that they will typically ignore new tech until it is officially blessed by Microsoft. You can have a piece of tech that everyone is using and works really well and it will be ignored if it isn't blessed by Microsoft.
The other issue with .NET is all the Microsoft gumpf that tends to come with it even with the newer versions of .NET.
I am also in the weird place of being a Linux user. I've had job interviews that wanted to do live coding exercise/take home code exercise and they expect you to do everything in Visual Studio with SQL Server.
They don't even know Rider exists a lot of the time. It is also quite different visually compared to Visual Studio code.
A lot of places have never used Linux at all and if they have they have it would be WSL or some RHEL box. So if you are screen sharing Gnome and with a totally different IDE and Terminal the person assessing you might not actually understand what you are doing.
> At least you can run SQL Server easily on Linux using docker.
1) They normally want you to use something like SQL Server Compact or SQL Server Express and a specific version. TBH I just don't bother anymore with these interviews because it takes like a couple of hours to get all this stuff working on Windows.
2) SQL Server Projects can only be used on Windows with Visual Studio. Some places do a lot of stuff "old school" and they want you to use that.
> It's just .NET that's largely ignored for no real technical basis.
As someone who has been developing primarily on .Net for the past decade this is absolute bullshit.
1. It’s only very recently that .Net became open source. Until then you would frequently hit issues where the only option was to rely on the few support calls you got with MS engineers with your $1000+ Visual Studio subscription to move forward. And believe me, this isn’t a pleasant way of debugging.
2. It’s only recently that .Net became cross platform. Until recently .Net meant you had to pay far more money for windows servers, get far less performance, and open your application to way more security issues. And when things broke they broke in highly inscrutable ways.
3. It’s still not a great platform. If you’re deploying on Windows, there are still things you will want to do that will require windows registry changes.
4. It’s only recently that the transition to an open source/cross platform framework has stabilized. Until now you had to deal with MS alphabet and naming goop, an absolutely muddy roadmap, and if you ever got thrown into a project you’d end up finding yourself in a mess of varying conventions, project types, incompatibilities, etc.
5. You know all those performance improvements they’re delivering with every release? There’s a reason for that. Until recently performance was so bad. Kestrel alone provider at least an order of magnitude of improvement.
6. Thank the lord for Jetbrains but other than them, to do proper .Net development you need to use Visual Studio. And Visual Studio is not a pleasant IDE or development environment at all.
There were a lot of technical reasons to not adopt .Net. Even today there’s the problem of MS losing interest or making the wrong choices and there being basically no alternative, because unlike even Java, the .NET ecosystem is completely dependent on what MS does.
By recently you mean a decade ago yeah? I mean it’s fair that it was only a half-decade (.NET 5) when it was genuinely complete enough, but lots of stuff was in good shape when it was called .NET Core.
It sounds like you’re projecting the problems of an existing .NET shop onto the shape of a startup without all that baggage. I can assure you, having worked with many customers running new business on newer .NET, it hasn’t been a legit technical concern since about .NET Core 3.
A decade ago is when they started the transition. It’s been painful.
If you’re a new shop that is making decisions without looking into how the company that pretty much runs the platform you’re basing your future on has acted in the past decade (we’ll ignore how they’ve acted beyond that because then it’s a no brainer) then you’re doing yourself a disservice.
I see that you’ve narrowed the goal posts to just technical concerns, which is fair, but isn’t sufficient to make a decision about what technology to choose.
Especially in a field where you have a similar alternative in Java where the sponsoring company doesn’t have half as much control, as well as several fully open source alternatives.
While suffering the performance loss of V8 versus CLR, JVM or any compiled language.
One of the reasons I am back to writing more C++ code is C++ addons for node.js, as several SaaS products now only care about Next.js as extension SDK.
I don't think it's about dreaming to be Google. K8s is pretty easy to set up now with a hosted cloud platform if you start with it, and helm takes care of pretty much all your infra needs. Migrating to K8s is what's awful. From there, the docs have most everything you need to know and there's an abundance of helpful information online that covers most problems you'll run into.
I would love this to be true, but it isn't. I've done generating types for the frontend multiple times, sometimes from C# (around 2016, using typelite), Java (openapi template generator) and most recently straight from OpenAPI spec files (.yaml) using Orval.
It always has been a shitshow. It works well for the 90% cases, but in the 10% edge cases, things break. It becomes impossible to fix generation issues, you will often resort in working around issues in your backend/openapi code. Sometimes you report bugs upstream and hope it gets fixed. In the current project we are stuck on a ~2year old Orval version (a typescript generator from openapi) because some features broke or were removed in the latest version, and the entire monorepo (15+ LoB apps) wouldn't compile and would require major changes. This simply because a never version of the generator was broken/removed features previously present.
No, that's not true. If you share code like this then you can do things like put the same validation code in the frontend and the backend: frontend to give a nice user experience, and backend to protect the endpoint.
OpenAPI does support patterns for fields and nullables/non-nullables - that already gets you very far regarding validation. A decently sophisticated generator (which don't exist IMHO) would generate the validation code for your respective language.
Still one lang on both ends is nice: there are some bits of code you want to run on both ends (like templating for SSR/SEO/caching; but also using them in the browser).
Not really? Having come deom a TS + Go startup it’s pretty trivial to wire up domain objects across each language and define a clean API boundary with some enforcement at build time. And Go was a far better choice for the backend than TS for some lower-level memory considerations.
With TS you don't have to "define a clean API boundary with some enforcement at build time". You can use the exact same types you're using to enforce endpoint schemas everywhere.
You don't need a middle man like OpenAPI (which I've used and it's a mediocre solution).
>- Less bugs (Visual Studio has been progressively getting worse).
Eeeeeeh...it's not quite roses and rainbows on the Rider side either, and that's coming from a Jetbrains fanboy. (Although admittedly, I'm not really up-to-date on the current state of VS in day-to-day work)
But yeah, the coding/refactoring support (Resharper et al) and general quality and integration of tooling (database tools, package managers, version control, debugging (esp. multi-process) etc.) is the big one for me.
> Eeeeeeh...it's not quite roses and rainbows on the Rider side either, and that's coming from a Jetbrains fanboy
Obviously. IME it is better than Visual Studio.
> But yeah, the coding/refactoring support (Resharper et al) and general quality and integration of tooling (database tools, package managers, version control, debugging (esp. multi-process) etc.) is the big one for me.
I rarely use any of these tools tbh. I just want Resharper and something that works reliably on Linux. I would transition to using vim entirely but half the vim stuff I like using I can't use with Windows (work is never not going to use Windows).
I switched over entirely to Rider as well, in my experience it's far more performant, has a far smoother UX, has a lot more functionality for power users, and includes Resharper by default, giving you access to a bunch more powerful inspections and refactoring.
> I wonder how much of Meta the corporation is a scam waiting to crumble.
I imagine almost none of it. Social networks solve connectivity problems that people want solved. Talk to some "casuals" who aren't in tech about how they find out about new restaurants, social trends, arts and crafts, places to go visit, etc. and the answer is Instagram or TikTok. And FB does the same but for older generations.
Ads are also a fundamental revenue pillar in this world. You can layer in relevance ads for a product to anyone, at any time, for any topic. If something exists and people pay attention to it, there's a way to make money advertising around it.
There's ... certainly deeper questions to be had about if this stuff is actually good for us, but in the mean time, it's very real and worth a lot of money.
Would be curious about this in more detail since I’ve not normally seen a JS app be significantly slower due to adding autoinstrumentation over the years. There’s obviously an overhead but aside from the occasional bug I’ve never seen it be significant to impact user experiences or cost to serve.
That said if your goal is basic performance metrics and nothing more, then tracing is overkill. Don’t even need an SDK, just monitor the compute nodes async with some basic system metrics. But if your goal is to narrow down behaviors within your app on a per-request basis there really is no way around tracing if you value your sanity.
> Anyways, OpenAI is not in profit-seeking mode, and there's no economic incentives to do so right now.
You disparaged the article, but then immediately agreed with its main point. The fact that there is no economic incentive for OpenAI to run sustainably is a problem. It means they will happily continue to spend trillions of investor, lender, and (soon) government money, most of which is being burned as waste heat radiating from GPUs, in pursuit of an AGI pipedream.
Not being in profit seeking mode is one thing. Being so far away from profit seeking mode that you need a government bailout is an entirely different thing.
According to this[0] podcast some captains of industry in SV consider that bubbles are good, actually. At least, that is the thesis of this[1] book published by Stripe Press. Not because they'll deliver returns for their investors, but because they drive innovation in the long run. But obviously, if they are perceived to have terrible ROI, they aren't getting over the line, which leads to a dilemma – how do we reach that moonshot without fooling a bunch of people and destroying the economy along the way?
All that said, anyone who spends a lot of time with AI knows the current direction of generative AI isn't really that moonshot. But the scale of compute that is being unlocked right now, along with technologies like photonics, might be what's key to AGI.
If you show revenue, people will ask "How much?" And it will never be enough, but if you have no revenue, you can say you're pre-revenue. You're a potential pure play. It's not about how much you earn, it's about what you're worth. And who's worth the most? Companies that lose money.
Yes, we know it works. Just ask the knowledgeable crowd over on r/wallstreetbets. They have the answer: just turn your phone upside down! Voila, line is going up again!
Huh? They have committed to about a trillion dollars in infrastructure build out they will need to pay for. How about instead of begging tax payers to back loans to pay for this, they actually produce some profit and pay for it themselves?
I feel like this question needs to be even louder because in the past they would just mumble something about “job creation,” but that’s undermined by the fact that they also tout AI as “job replacement” to investors and clients alike.
Yeah. No revenue. Nobody wants to hear about revenue! It's not about how much you make, it is about how much you're worth and who is worth the most? Companies that lose money.
The W is important there. If the DAUs were good, they'd report those. I do generally find that LLMs are a weekly thing at best in a chat bot form (the agentic stuff I use more often).
If I operated a vending machine that spat out a dollar every time somebody pressed a button, I'd have just as many weekly users as I put dollar bills into it. You wouldn't call that a winning business despite the exceptionally high rate of 5-star reviews.
The more appropriate analogy is: you have a vending machine that dispenses a paper slip with your fortune on it everytime somebody presses a button. However you can only get one fortune told per day, but you can pay to get more in bulk.
Turns out people find these fortunes super useful, and many are actually paying real money to get more, and each vending machine is actually making money on this.
But now the vending machine industry has also figured out that bigger, more powerful machines produce tell better fortunes which draws in even more people.
So now the industry is investing heavily to build more, bigger vending machines. However, these machines need tons of expensive parts and power, and oh, we can't slow down because China, and so they are racing like crazy to build more.
Unfortunately, there is effectively only one company making a key part, and there's not enough power for all the machines being built, and so very expensive new infrastructure has to be built to meet the forecasted demand for all the fortunes in the world.
And this requires trillions in funding, which gets very expensive to borrow, and so the US government is being asked to provide loan guarantees, because who better would know what interest payments on trillions of debt look like?
It's a losing company if they aren't making money and have no feasible path to do so, considering amount of outstanding debts they already have and future debt they are planning to take.
> Weird thing to fixate about when the whole industry actually uses MAUs.
Are you kidding me? Like, both Google and Facebook tracked l7, l28 which is the number of days that a person/account logged in over the last 7 or 28 days. Fundamentally, that's the sign of a useful product, in that people keep coming back.
> 800M WAU is a "losing company"?
Not enough information to be sure. If their business model requires selling dollars for fifty cents, then maybe.
I don't doubt the utility of these products (sometimes), but I do doubt the business model behind OpenAI & Anthropic (the "pure" model providers).
Maybe, maybe not. The stat alone doesn't really dictate the answer - it just gives hope they'll be able to turn a profit one day (hopefully soon) without losing their position vs doubt of the same.
But what percentage of those startups are making such grand promises while taking in such unfathomable amounts of capital? The sheer scale of the investment per AI company, the massive tax incentives being given out by states and debt being taken on by energy companies promising massive increase in loads…I mean this is all without precedent. AI speculation is rapidly driving infrastructural changes at the state level across the country.
We know they can’t all be winners. But the price and ripple per failure (at least it seems to me) will be staggering. Am I off base here?
Space is no one's land by a number of active international treaties, and also very large and empty, so enforcing boundaries is hard, except by actively killing spacecraft up high. There is no viable "space defense", comparable to the atmospheric air defense. Were it not so, spy satellites won't exist.
