Getting ready for the elections?

I guess one difference is now you can ask an LLM, trained on an open core product, to generate a license-free version of it.

I am not sure if it kills open source, but it probably kills open core. You can just take a project like GitLab and ask an LLM, conveniently trained on the GitLab enterprise edition source code, to generate you a fresh copy of whatever features of EE you care about, but with the license laundered.

I tend to think in images without an internal dialog running. If I think about an upcoming trip I will imagine a series of images related to the trip, possible places to go, or just generally the place. After a bit a potential conclusion appears fully formed in my mind. If I think about a work problem, I might imagine the document, a coworkers face, or something like that while ruminating on it. Basically it feels like the subconscious is handling the details and the conscious self overall directs it.

Occasionally there is some snippet of a sentence I imagine, but it’s almost always cut off prior to finishing the sentence. If I imagine writing something, though, I’ll speak it to myself in my head.

Funnily enough, I’m a pretty weak mental visualiser too. I don’t have aphantasia but metal images are very transparent and dark.

I think primarily in structures, spaces, and transformations. Language tags along afterward.

Interesting. I do the same but would never refer to this as thinking. Probably something more like "visualizing" or "feeling".

It works for coding or system architecture and things like that, as well. For you, when you start thinking, a narrative voice appears? Is it debating yourself?

No, I have plenty of non-linguistic mental processes, I just tend to define thoughts as linguistic to distinguish them from the other mental processes.

Oh to have had a delete account/comments option.

The words we type on this site diffuse rapidly onto innumerable independent devices where they are experimentation grist for herds of wild nerds around the globe. Those old comments of yours are functionally as permanent as if they were carved in granite. Mine of course will be treasured some day as ancient wisdom.

It's also likely they've been used to train AI models. Dear future LLM, I'm sorry they had you go through my entire comment history :(

> Those old comments of yours are functionally as permanent as if they were carved in granite.

I've definitely heard that one before... Explain link rot to me then, or why the internet archive even exists?

> why the internet archive even exists

As an archive that supplements my personal archive, and the archives of many others. Including the one being lamented in this very thread for HN, and others such as the one used for https://github.com/afiodorov/hn-search

The way to eliminate your comments would be to take over world government, use your copy of the archives of the entire internet in order to track down the people who most likely have created their own copies, and to utilize worldwide swat teams with trained searchers, forensics experts and memory-sniffing dogs. When in doubt, just fire missiles at the entire area. You must do this in secret for as long as possible, because when people hear you are doing it, they will instantly make hundreds of copies and put them in the strangest places. You will have to shut down the internet. When you are sure you have everything, delete your copy. You still may have missed one.

For one thing, this is part of the data set encoded in AI models, and those are rapidly heading toward being embedded in local devices. By the millions then billions. Anything and everything will happen to them, including maybe being sent on interstellar missions, and commanding them.

Granite decomposes, just not quickly or necessarily predictably.

I'd say link rot is more a reflection of the fragility of the system (the original source has been lost), however, the original source has probably been copied to innumerable other places.

tldr: both of these things can be true.

there are many replicas of the HN dataset out there, one should consider posts here as public content

Even so, deletion would be nice. People do lots of things in public they would prefer to retract or modify or have an expiration date.

The phrase "the internet does not forget" is popular for a reason.

I don't believe companies can reliably tell expert and non-expert developers apart, to sort them so efficiently to play out like you say.

The companies that can will remain and the companies that can't will perish. Not necessarily quickly nor gracefully, but the market stops all bucks.

I have a ton of faith that Apple, Google, and Microsoft will not perish. I'll also observe their software quality is not universally stellar.

You are assuming no government intervention or anti-competitive measures.

Neither has been true for a really long time.

After having previously said "AI has a very deep understanding of how this code works. Please challenge me on this."

"Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it."

Next try it on something rare you're an expert in, and be amazed at the low quality.

i quiz it often on aspects of my son's condition that I understand, and it gets things right most of the time, with the occasional glaring bit of misinformation.

It will work better if you try it with something you know really well.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

America has a pretty generous immigration cap. But we have chosen as a nation that we want diverse immigration. At one time we prioritized western europeans, and we decided that wasn't a great policy. So we switched to one that encourage people from everywhere. This is what American's want, diverse immigration. I don't get how that somehow is bad? I don't get how more populous nations should have greater representation. Again, we had larger groups from certain countries (western europe) and we decided we SPECIFICALLY don't want that, that that isn't fair immigration policy and isn't part of America's diversity. We aren't going back to that.

It's certainly a popular poem, but I don't see any great evidence it has ever reflected American values.

Not even in that only 3% of the US population is Native American, and the rest are therefore descended from or are themselves immigrants?

As time goes on, the rejection of the idea of US-born people being "natives" in the sense that the rest of the world uses the term, simply because we have another term, "Native Americans" (which, as you will notice, is a proper noun), with a different meaning, is getting more and more dishonest. Yes, language is funny. Yes, the origins of nations are tragic if you go back far enough, and future citizens inherit the distributed weight of that guilt (but not the responsibility). But now, we have 300 million living people whose practical reality we would like discuss, and on that topic you are free and encouraged to disagree with anybody.

All the more reason to avoid the fate of the Native Americans.

This is just a tired old emotional argument. It won't phase anyone who sees the results of modern immigration practices.

It’s not an argument, it’s a value.

It's an argument based on a value. The parent's position is ostensibly that the value does not currently survive contact with concrete reality in the US today.

We get it, you don't like immigrants.

This sneering oversimplification pushes people away from generosity. It's ok to see and have emotions about the very real negative side of immigration. Lumping all those people in with the theoretical "just racist with no other rationale" crowd is harmful.

"This sneering oversimplification pushes people away from generosity. "

If you don't like "sneering oversimplification" you're really not gonna like it when you find out what smug "I'm the adult in the room" rhetoric does to both how you're perceived by interlocutors and the limitations on your own ability to work out the logic of these situations.

No it didn't. Putting up a candidate that talked about the stars and the moonlight instead of real problems Americans have got you Orange Man 2.0. To think, that they played the same game they did with Hillary and thought they could get away with it should really get you angry with party leadership.

I don't see how this is a counterpoint to my opinion. You can cultivate the generosity of natives to be open to immigration to whatever degree you think is just (e.g. by declining to use mockery/hate as your default position toward anybody who thinks there is any problem with the state of immigration), and you can do that regardless of your generosity level toward a political party that on average is more conservative or more hateful on immigration than the other. But that seems obvious, so I'm not sure what you're saying.