Alas, it’s pretty obvious to everyone else that you tried to pick a fight by shoehorning your dubious, pre-formed argument into an inappropriate place. Better luck next time.
i was indeed trying to pick a fight, with gitlab, because i think its pathetic to pivot and abandon values for money, regardless as to those values, and regardless as to whether the abandonment is done by a human or a corporation. your comment was a convenient conversational entry point, as you made the scenario political, offering a chance for me to generalize to my point. thats the way i saw it anyway. did something in particular make you feel like a target?
Consider that the negative reaction to your (flagged, not by me) pompous, blathering comment has nothing to do with politics, or the point you failed to make. It didn’t make sense in context, was purposelessly accusatory, and generally added nothing to the conversation. I’m done explaining the obvious to you. If you don’t get it at this point, it’s because you’re not letting yourself get it. Go back to Reddit or X or wherever and pollute that space. It’s just not how HN works.
'no dei = suck it fascism' > 'both fascism/communism would get rid of dei, why is abandoning values good anyway' > 'fuck off you are polluting our forum'
between figuring out wtf happened here and letting it go ... option B thanks
You picked out a phrase of a larger post and misconstrued any response as applying that context. Trying to understand how it might be interpreted by other people is expected. What you've been doing is sometimes characterized as being myopic.
How other people read this exchange is trivial enough to summarize:
* initial comment - new acronym, less clever (CREDIT -> SQOMCO)
* secondard comment - "Suck it fascists" (contemporary/funny acronym)
* third comment - 'fascism and communism would both get rid of dei' (out of place)
I'm sorry that you didn't understand what was going on. Maybe you're embarrassed. The ongoing verbal vomit seems willful and pointless, but you do you.
so because its considered funny that no dei etc=suck it fascists, i cant discuss why the joke is incorrectly constructed to me. perhaps the right winger comparison was too much, perhaps the ongoing vomit was an attempt to elicit an explanation. either way you and the other guy did a terrible job at teaching your fellow human being lol
45 million lines would get to ~$1.125 mil for the linux kernel.
950k lines for Bun would get to $23,750
use whatever math you like ofc.
Does an Anthropic/employee pay that, no. Even if it's at a loss in terms of company revenue, it's worth burning the private capital for all kinds of other reasons.
I think it hits perfectly. He espouses that almost every vendor everywhere is doing something immoral and it will inevitably be used against you. Eventually, some of these predictions come true enough for some part of his audiences.
I don't think you've made a point about his abilities. I do think you've restated his proclivities, which reinforces the basis for the quip.
This is particularly uncharitable to someone that saw around many corners and was articulate enough to warn us about them in advance.
There's a reason there's a subreddit called "Stallman Was Right", and it's not that he was shotgun blasting opinions and landed a few of them. It's because he has a systemic understanding of the incentives our system sets up and is able to project decades into the future about how those incentives will play out.
The ending note was the most interesting. In regards to the offhand about AI, I was literally was talking to my wife about a topic very close to it last night. Strange.
The upper middle class have a leg-up and motivation for leveraging AI, as we are still involved with optimizing financials, time, and maintenance of lifestyle through careful planning. Like we asked Google before, now we ask Google which redirects us to their LLM to answer the questions more fully, along with actionable plans we can afford to implement. We take this journey multiple times, on a daily basis. We definitely noticed the increase in AI usage YoY for the last couple years.
I'm guessing the upper class and above, generally don't need to worry about practical details in the same way, delegating that responsibility (to someone who will use AI eventually). Maybe it feels like it's a tool best leveraged for our economic position because we're already trapped. Maybe everyone will feel this way.
There had to have been a trigger that caused the shift, even if that trigger was a momentum threshold...which had to manifest as signal.
What didn't happen was irrational and self-oblivious leadership noticing they had been acting irrationally for years. "the potential" of wealth or power was present long before this shift.
You might overestimate the understanding of people outside the tech bubble. Most don't understand or believe what LLMs can do, and humans have a unavoidable habit of sticking their heads in the sand about disruptive change .
That is especially true in a large, heavily bureaucratic organization with a culture of highly-centralized top-down decision-making by the boss - an 80 year-old, non-technical boss - and which priortizes loyalty to and pleasing the boss over expertise and speaking the truth.
Although Ted Turner’s net worth at the time of his death in May 2026 was estimated between $2.2 billion and $2.8 billion, his politics were very progressive.
> In 1996, Turner admitted, "For the 10 years I ran [the team], it was a disaster. ... As I relinquished control of the Braves and gave somebody else the responsibility, it did well."
When's the last time you heard a billionaire say something like that?
> "We're the only first-world country that doesn't have universal healthcare and it's a disgrace."
> Iran's nuclear position: "They're a sovereign state. We have 28,000. Why can't they have 10? We don't say anything about Israel — they've got 100 of them approximately — or India or Pakistan or Russia."
> dubbed opponents of abortion "bozos"
> In 2002, Turner accused Israel of terror
> in 2008, Turner asserted on PBS's Charlie Rose that if steps are not taken to address global warming, most people would die and "the rest of us will be cannibals".
There's more than wikipedia covers, but you get the idea.
That's a funny thing to mark as "progressive" as I don't think that'd have been considered progressive until fairly recently. Plus, he walked it back.
> In 2002, Turner accused Israel of terror: "The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers, that's all they have. The Israelis ... they've got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing. So who are the terrorists? I would make a case that both sides are involved in terrorism." He apologized for that and the remarks in 2011 about the 9/11 hijackers, but also defended himself: "Look, I'm a very good thinker, but I sometimes grab the wrong word ... I mean, I don't type my speeches, then sit up there and read them off the teleprompter, you know. I wing it.
He was also uncomfortably concerned with population growth.
> Turner also said in the interview that he advocated Americans having no more than two children. In 2010, he stated that the People's Republic of China's one-child policy should be implemented.
I'm not sure I'd call him progressive. Thinking Iran should have nuclear weapons doesn't seem to make sense from any perspective unless you want them to use them.
Frankly, he seems like pretty standard anti-natalist environmentalist to me.
> I'm not sure I'd call him progressive. Thinking Iran should have nuclear weapons doesn't seem to make sense from any perspective unless you want them to use them.
Maybe the point is that the logic applies to literally every country having them, including the US, but that doesn't imply that starting a war to try to stop one of them from getting them will end up with a better situation.
I don't know if "anti-natalist" can be so simply placed on the conservative vs. progressive axis. Worrying about overpopulation means worrying about the quality of life of future generations, whereas "natalism" à la Musk is basically worrying about how they can keep making themselves richer, while not giving a damn about what happens to the world or humanity afterwards. So Turner's concern about population growth, if not necessarily progressive, strikes me as very fitting and in line with the humanist, philanthropic positions shown by the other points mentioned about him.
> I don't know if "anti-natalist" can be so simply placed on the conservative vs. progressive axis.
That was kind of my point. I doesn't belong on that axis at all, especially trying to transpose a comment from decades ago onto the current political dividing lines between "left" and "right" when so many ideologies have shifted sides over that period.
> Worrying about overpopulation means worrying about the quality of life of future generations, whereas "natalism" à la Musk is basically worrying about how they can keep making themselves richer, while not giving a damn about what happens to the world or humanity afterwards.
One can be natalist or anti-natalist for a variety of reasons. There's no one ideology that leads a person to each conclusion. People have come to (anti-)natalism from both humanist and anti-humanist arguments (and a variety of other arguments).
> So Turner's concern about population growth, if not necessarily progressive, strikes me as very fitting and in line with the humanist, philanthropic positions shown by the other points mentioned about him.
Again, avoiding the left/right/conservative/progressive labeling as those terms are dynamic over time. He's essentially a Malthusian for humanitarian and environmental reasons. Which makes sense, given his age. He'd have been in his mid 20's through the 60s and that was a fairly popular viewpoint at the time.
Indeed. Any developer who has used copilot knows you can't rely on it 100%
The post's head image immediately bothered me. Copilot's strength is not on patching SDLC but to speed up the catching of typos and minor oversights. If you're using it as an integral part of SDLC, it causes problems immediately. So why posit the strawman? Marketing.
Re-read the thread. They made a joke about acronyms.
reply