In case it wasn't clear, my comment was sarcastic. To be absolutely clear, I don't agree with racial discrimination.
So that we don't talk past each other, here is a summary of my perspective of the discussion so far:
NoMoreNicksLeft dropped an unhinged rant about "England for the English", including a clearly sarcastic and mocking reference to "They have strength in their diversity".
joe_mamba chimed in with "diversity is bad", and added that Germany has the same "issue".
DeathArrow expressed incredulity at witnessing open racial segregationism on HN.
You replied to DeathArrow with "diversity of opinions is good". It was unclear whether you were defending the expression of segregationism on HN, or disagreeing with the premise of it. In any case you didn't signal that you recognized the extreme irony.
I attempted to point out the irony with as few words as possible, and apparently failed to communicate well enough.
Ah I think I understand. I definitely think the point is worth making that England seems to be one of the only places on earth that doesn't value - or even recognise the existence of - its own native population, even as a point of debate. It's definitely nothing to do with segregation, which is just something else.
No one in most countries would argue that their native population doesn't exist as a category. In fact while in the US the native Americans have been treated very badly in the past, that hopefully doesn't happen too much today, and they are quite honoured in some ways.
The biggest racial discrimination in today's UK is their inability to arrest and put an end to grooming gangs. Get educated on the subject to understand whats being insinuated by the slogan they have "diversity" as their strength. Most of western Europe & UK are unable to handle crime committed by certain groups, for fear of being labeled racists. Well, there is a teacher in UK in "hiding" because he offended the wrong people. In summary, UK neither has the soft power nor the moral authority to influence anyone in the today's world.
the UK has incarcerated plenty of participants in grooming gangs from a diverse range of ethnic groups (and elected none of them President).
No matter how many accounts you create to amplify the Epstein-associate media message that only other ethnicities participate in the systematic sexual abuse of children and get away with it, you're still not getting an invite to the island...
Yes, but the comment DeathArrow responded to, which is apparently what started all this bickering about racism (collapse that comment to see what I mean), was not.
joe_mamba's use of "diversity" reads as being about diversity of opinion; it only appears to be about race given the context you pointed out.
Seriously, what part of "United people are dangerous for the elites" suggests that the people should segregate themselves and each other?
I have a hard time believing that, sorry. joe_mamba literally quoted the same use of the word "diversity" that I did, and concurred with the sentiment - that it "leads to division". And went on to add that Germany was also "under the spell of a cult".
You're suggesting that joe_mamba simply used a paragraph of barely-veiled racist drivel as a jumping off point to make a completely unrelated and totally-not-racist point about how diversity of opinion is harmful and "leads to weakness"? And agreed with the "cult" rhetoric for good measure?
Why exactly should we ignore the context? An excess of charity, perhaps? How are we supposed to interpret "similar issue in Germany" without the context?
It used to be widely known that tech nerds are socially impaired.
Then they built the future and earned a lot of money and status, and now Silicon Valley is a hotbed of neofascist thought.
Turns out that if you give enough power to people who wrangle machines, they start thinking about wrangling people the same way.
Nerds are extremely dangerous. Through their work they quickly absorb the axiom of "predictability is good, unpredictability is bad" and from there to conclusions like "heterogeneity is dangerous and unpredictable" and "behavior of actors in a distributed system must be constrained". Put DevOps in charge of society and expect to get humans treated like cattle, not pets.
This was already happening, it's just they were on your team and you were happy. One of the most obvious things to have happen is the overriding power of the left in tech and all the right (and centre-left) people warning that when the pendulum swings all the left-wing people who love giving authority more power will regret it. As though all authoritarian left wing countries in history were not evidence enough, they have to learn the lesson the hard way.
Firstly, I don't appreciate, at all, being told what "team" I'm on, or the smug tone that I'm now "learning a lesson". When you come on HN, leave that sort of thing at the door, please. I'm being polite but I'd like you to imagine this worded in the strongest possible way that is acceptable for whatever culture you happen to be from. Include swear words if it helps.
I don't know of any "big tech" going out of its way to enforce left wing values. Bandwagoning on large scale social movements, sure, in a "play it safe" kind of way, the same way literally every company gets all rainbow-y during Pride month - it's profitable, or they wouldn't do it. If you resented that, what you resented was having a minority opinion.
The relatively recent shift towards right wing values is also rooted in self interest. It doesn't indicate some kind of change of heart, it simply signals recognition of a power shift - the opinions of people / users / customers now matter less than the opinions of certain authoritarian right wing governments.
Unless you think I appreciate your first paragraph, it's a bit hypocritical to do something I don't appreciate while berating me for same.
> I don't know of any "big tech" going out of its way to enforce left wing values.
I believe you, and I think that is exactly the problem.
> The relatively recent shift towards right wing values is also rooted in self interest
I agree, but this is why neither left nor right should be cheering for corporations enforcing hate speech rules (set by whomever is in power), shadow bans for the right wing voices, bans for people questioning the efficacy of the covid vaccine, or for questioning vaccine mandates, etc etc. The opinions of authoritarian left wing people for 10 years are now being ignored (well, not in HR departments and all the other places left wing authoritarianism exists) and the left seems to view that change as a rise in authoritarianism.
Are you saying that merely stating the practically proven fact of "diversity leads to political and social division" makes someone a neo fascist? Or did I misunderstand your comment?
What exactly is the difference between "a machine-readable contract for what the output has to be" and "source code"?
What is the difference between an "agent" and a "compiler"?
For that matter, what is the difference between "I got an agent to provide a high level description" and a decompiler?
What is the difference between ["decompiling" a binary, editing the resulting source, recompiling, and redistributing] and [analyzing the behavior of a binary, feeding that description into an LLM, generating source code that replicates that behavior, editing that, recompiling and redistributing]?
Takeaway: we are now in a world where software tools can climb up and down the abstraction stack willy nilly and independently of human effort. Legal tools that attempt to track the "provenance" of "source code" were already shaky but are now crumbling entirely.
That's funny, because the "network effect" of the GPL was always extremely obvious to me as part of the point. The idea being that the more that GPL software forms a cohesive ecosystem, the less financially viable it becomes to operate outside of that ecosystem. It's viral, right? And software builds on software, we're about 15 layers deep at this point. The hope is that eventually, so much software is GPL that you effectively have two choices when writing something new: 1) join the GPL borg, or 2) boil the ocean reimplementing the entire stack from scratch.
Unfortunately, free software was successful enough that the latest generation takes it for granted, and has forgotten why radical software politics is necessary. They do not understand, if they even think to ask, why so many nerds ran GNU/Linux even when it was objectively kind of terrible - why so many people were motivated to pour time into a half-broken thing. I hope by the time they do understand, it will not be too late.
My controversial opinion: the problem with the GPL is that it isn't viral enough. It was written by nerds with a good understanding of computers, and poor understanding of people. As such, it focuses too much on technicalities like what it means "link" programs together, in an attempt to rigorously specify definitions that permit running proprietary programs on free operating systems, and vice versa.
But it doesn't work. Every time your Android phone downloads a firmware update, by rights that should be a GPL violation, as it's a single giant executable that mixes together GPL and proprietary code, deliberately made in such a way that separating them out after the fact is impossible - in fact, the program is explicitly designed to fail to run if you so much as tamper with a single bit (signed images). It is hard to imagine something further from Stallman's vision - hard to imagine something less respectful of user freedom. And yet this is permitted on technicalities, because this functionally unmodifiable binary blob happens to be structured in a particular way that computer nerds recognize as a type of database called a "filesystem", and the GPL parts are neatly organized into database entries called "files". And they all agree that that's okay, whereas if you mix the code in a different type of database called a "link table", well that's bad and wrong.
Which "individual freedom" do you feel the GPL denies you? As far as I can tell, it only prevents you from piggybacking on other people's work, and adding unfair stipulations to the resulting product. It is a very symmetrical, "do-unto-others" type license.
In the scenario you’re describing, when I write my own code, I am limited in what license I can pick for that code because of licensing choices other people made.
But you're not actually restricted from doing anything, are you? What is it exactly you want to do that other people's choice of GPL prevents? Steal their work and sell it? Oh how unfair!
We are talking about a hypothetical universe in which nearly all software is GPL, such that it is almost impossible to write useful software without building upon other GPL code. In such a universe, licensing "your" code as MIT would indeed be unfair, because you would be taking the work of others, illegally stripping the label, and making it available to profitable interests to use without compensation to the original developers against their express wishes - said compensation merely being the extremely reasonable request to share back, as you were shared to.
You still haven't really explained why you're so keen on doing that sort of thing.
> licensing "your" code as MIT would indeed be unfair, because you would be taking the work of others, illegally stripping the label, and making it available to profitable interests to use without compensation to the original developers against their express wishes
I'm not sure why there are quotes around "your".
If I write code and license it MIT, but it includes code that has a different non-GPL license (lets say Apache), my code is MIT-licensed, and the included code is still Apache-licensed.
I haven't illegally (or legally) stripped any licenses, or changed how it's available to others. I've picked a license for code I wrote, and the developers of code I took a dependency on picked a license for their code. People who want to use my code have to consider the license of my code and also the dependencies I used.
The GPL is largely unique in its desire to control what license I can pick for my own code.
I'm keen on picking my own license for my own code because I personally don't want to block my code from being used by anybody, commercially or otherwise. I've got no issue with developers who do want to prevent closed-source, commercial, or any other kind of downstream usage. And I'm happy to comply with the licenses of code that I leverage as part of my code. I do take issue with developers who want to impose their licensing preferences on my code.
Libraries or executables, it makes no difference. You are incentivized to use GPL because you wish to build on top of work that is GPL.
Obviously in large part that didn't happen, because of a cultural tendency to use more permissive licence variants (such as AGPL) for libraries, in the pragmatic hope that this would encourage their use even in proprietary programs, and therefore incentivize back-contributions from a wider audience. But this indeed halts the "virality" of the GPL, and so one is once again forced to conclude - incredibly - that Stallman was not radical enough...
Couldn't make it work with a friend sitting next to me. The QR codes led to the website but didn't add a contact. Manually adding the ID resulted in the number abruptly disappearing with no feedback and no effect.
This shouldn't be surprising. They are ultimately trained on human generated text! Or on text that was generated by something trained on human-generated text, or some even deeper recursion. In the end, all "intelligence" is an emergent consequence of emulating humans. The less human-like you make them, the further they get from the "source" of their intelligence. It wouldn't be problem if we knew how to teach programs "how to think" - but we don't!! That is why, in 2026, we train language transformers on huge corpuses instead of symbolically programming expert systems in Lisp.
Something I'm kind of surprised by is the lack of interest in bootstrapping language models into something like a "person". Not a butler, assistant, programming tool, doctor, therapist, sycophant, whatever - a convincingly independent person with thoughts and feelings, moods, flaws and all. Maybe there isn't economic demand for it.
I'm not following - are you implying that handing a contact card to someone is a sexual pass? Or is it only considered sexual when the recipient is underage?
On the basis of what I've seen so far I find it unlikely that Epstein actually cared much about establishing a "behavioral engineering institute". Baiting "thought leaders" by emailing them about big ideas and grand plans was his standard M/O, it seems. He must have sent hundreds if not thousands of such emails - Scott Aaronson got one[0], and with no disrespect intended to him he must be pretty far down the list of powerful people you'd want to collect.
Almost everyone voting Brexit was uneducated on the issues, a fact rapidly borne out by actually speaking to them. Actually "uneducated" is quite charitable as quite a lot are racist also. I don't know how anyone can claim otherwise with a straight face.
Which issues were they uneducated on? How many did you speak to, and I'm not talking about the engagement-bait bots on places like the Trending side of Twitter
reply