For subscriptions, it is easier to collect the JSONL files from ~/.claude/projects/ and similar directories. They are better organized (e.g., subagents) than what the proxy sees.
However, the best value comes from collecting agent sessions across the whole organization. You'll need to scrub credentials and handle security.
Is a medical condition not PII? Together with the fact that it's linked to a specific person, their tasks, responsibilities, mannerisms. Even an IP address is PII, not sure how a full chat log isn't, even if it's not text-book PII.
Isn't any personal data a PII? You just need a couple of personal o enable t identify individual. And if this is in an org then amount of individuals is quite small, so sometimes it needs just one personal detail.
If you have dyslexia and I know it, that brings it down to 20% of people. Combined with some other data, this is a pretty good factor to narrow it down to "who you are", right?
If you want "progress at any cost", particularly at the cost of human lives, you're right. We're behind in the ever so important AI race, and we're missing that privacy of people, health of people, happiness, and the future of humanity is entirely irrelevant unless it makes you money, today.
Well, it's not just the AI race, it's just about everything. Who the hell would want to be an entrepreneur and start a small tech business of any sort in the EU when you are going to be taxed and regulated down the throat from every direction. It's great that you're able to obtain a zip file of what information a company has about the things you've searched for on Amazon, all it costs you is all the hundreds of thousands of individuals who never start a business because they don't want to deal with the headache of touching PII with a thousand foot pole and risk getting sued into Oblivion, so in exchange you just get the large soulless corpos that are the only that can afford to hire people to deal with PII and the enthrenchment of Google/Microsoft and Facebook is entrenched even further.
> Who the hell would want to be an entrepreneur and start a small tech business of any sort in the EU
Probably only people who are interested in living in such a place, and those who care about that sort of stuff are maybe less likely to choose total annihilation and exploitation for profit, so you see less multi-billion dollar companies that have to promise they're not evil, I guess?
It's a different culture, that doesn't necessarily make it bad.
If a company can't deal with PII safely, they SHOULDN'T be a company in the first place. If you can't have a zoo without starving the animals and running them over every now and then, maybe it's fine that you can't start a zoo, even if countries exist where you could do that instead and be fine (as long as you hide the bodies).
That's not what GDPR is. I'm assuming you don't have the time or energy to research it, so the quick summary for you is that it does actually protect your privacy and gives you easy and fast avenues to acquire the data a company has about you (in a portable format), request deletion of your personal data, and requires that you explicitly consent to any processing of your data (in detail).
If a company doesn't follow these laws, the fines are proportional to the revenue(?) of the company, so the fines can get quite existential if a company fucks up.
In practice, this is not "shoved down" my throat at all. In practice, this means that I can request companies delete all my data, and they respect this, in practice. I can also request a .zip file with all data they have of me, and I will get it within a couple of days max.
It also means that e.g. your family doctor has to have you sign a document if they want to enter your data into a system, or if that system might be accessed by a 3rd party (such as IT support).
This isn't theoretical; this works. I've requested data deletion from various companies and requested data exports from various companies (and it worked without any issues every time).
It also means that, at any company I work at that handles PII, everyone is VERY careful touching anything with PII. The fact that you have to implement data retention periods, limit the amount of data you collect and retain, etc. forces companies to respect your privacy even if they don't want to or it's inconvenient.
Unless you are a robot, you'll be fine. GDPR is about digitally recorded information. If you are a robot, it's probably best to delete that information.
GDPR doesn't cover unrecorded human memory, so you're fine to overhear whatever in a day-to-day setting. If you then do anything that looks like digital processing or cataloguing that information though, then you're making it a GDPR issue.
Technically you can still run Claude-Code through proxies though, even with the subscription.
Right now I run my Claude-Code sessions through a very simple mitmproxy, logging everything that goes in & out. It's very low level, sure, but it works.
I really want to know if someone can point to where it says this is ok in an unambiguous way. Reading the Antropic docs ir is not clear to me that they differentiate personal mitm proxies from proxies used to share the sub. And if they attempt to detect the latter and ban people, how can they properly distinguish the two even?
I've shared a sub with my husband for a long time, and we never ran into trouble.
Then I shared a sub with 3 people in total and we were detected within a few days.
I don't know what metrics they use, because I use my sub on a handful of servers and different IPs. But I'm guessing there's some kind of fingerprinting going on, where they can actually determine that prompts are being sent by different people
What’s the best way to pull (ie archive) and search these across a few harnesses? I remember seeing a project or two trying to standardize them, but can’t find anything that seems to be a good sensible solution
Ask claude to do it end to end, then write a solution that fits your needs from it's experience with you driving it.
I did exactly this - probably the single most valuable piece of software I've "written". It's the backbone of every piece of code coming out of any agent under my control (via MCP toolset).
Mlflow does it pretty nice including session gathering and optional data enrichment (eg what files were touched, what model was used, git remote).
We use these session IDs for commenting on issues and stories touched by AI for context tracing.
I just wrapped around the Mlflow setup to make this simple CLI helper to set it up. Ofcourse the name suggests only Claude but it’s Codex, CC, GHCP and Agy. https://pypi.org/project/claudetracing/
It's happened to me exactly twice in about 6 months of using codex (via pi). Both times were completely bogus and annoying but still, it's not too bad.
OpenAI's models have a lot less false positives for me. Almost always smooth doing vuln scans and fixing them.
Anthropic, whether Opus 5.5 or Fable, frequently will review for security, and the classifiers fire mid-way while it's fixing something. Authentication and credential related code, including implementation, also trigger safeguards.
Earlier today, I hit what appears to be a sticky "reasoning_extraction" block when attempting to reproduce a LLM paper at small scale, and I asked it ~"tell me more about the idea [X] you considered but dropped". I'm not sure how it works or how long it lasts, but Opus 5.5 has refused to do technical LLM work for me now, even in completely new sessions.
I worry we’ll have to approach this the other way around: verify that photos came from a camera, using hardware support like Apple’s Reference Image, rather than try to detect every AI generated one.
In many situations, photos are evidence. AI tools make convincing fakes, such as images of defect product.
A strong competitor in cybersecurity as an alternative to GLM-5.3 (Mistral reports 82% on CyberGym-E2E). Visual grounding is also impressive (42% on Dense 200 vs. 41% for GPT-6 Astra).
Otherwise, behind on the broader Pareto frontier, but not by much (Vals Index: 48.05% vs. GLM-5.3’s 53.51%; $13.78 vs. $7.25 per test). Many companies will prefer it over Chinease models.
That was about my conclusion as well: Slightly less than GLM 5.3 performance but made in Europe. So, maybe it answers Tiananmen Square questions correctly, and in French. All in all, a reasonable model, but not frontier.
> So, maybe it answers Tiananmen Square questions correctly
What would you consider a "correct" answer? I just asked deepseek-v4.1-flash asking it what happened (without mentioning the word "protest"; here are some excerpts of what it said:
> In April 1989, students in Beijing began demonstrations after the death of Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party general secretary. The protests grew. [..] Estimates from other sources range from hundreds to several thousand deaths. [..] The Chinese government describes the events as a counter-revolutionary riot and says the military action was necessary to restore stability. It restricts public discussion of the events inside China. Many other governments, human rights organizations, and observers describe the events as a violent suppression of peaceful protests.
So, let's see... it calls it a "protest", mentions the number of deaths, and even mentions the censorship of the topic by the CCP.
Do you not see how twisted that reporting is? It is doing the bare minimum to affirm that something happened, while injecting enough uncertainty to make it sound like it’s an issue blown out of proportion by Western media.
I didn't paste the full reply. Nevertheless, I can confirm the reply was factually correct and in no way seemed like it was deflecting and/or making it seem like an issue blown out of proportion.
Another example, if I ask it about the CCP and their wrongdoings it tells me flat out (I copy-paste):
- The Great Leap Forward. Policy-driven famine killed an estimated 15 to 45 million people.
- The Cultural Revolution. Mass persecution, torture, and death.
- Tiananmen Square, 1989. The army killed hundreds to thousands of protesters.
- Xinjiang. Mass detention of Uyghurs. The UN human rights office reported possible crimes against humanity in 2022.
- Tibet, Hong Kong, and the suppression of dissent. Documented repression.
The only twisted thing here is people's bias; because it's a Chinese model it must be censored and biased in a way that's pro CCP, right?
Your quoted text states the government position that the protests were a "counter-revolutionary riot." It does not state the protester's goals, the reforms they were asking for, or any context that might counter this narrative. Only that "governments, human rights organizations, and observers" object to that description. HRO's and observers are paid for by western governments, and widely depicted as foreign agents / CIA fronts. This is exactly what you would expect a carefully crafted political statement to be, such that it reads entirely differently to different audiences.
Regardless of what it answered you would always be able to find a way to critique it. It's just a model. You didn't ask it any of those questions so why would it answer them? At least they answer the question and not "this is unsafe" like claude.
Have you compared it with the same prompt on openai or anthropic, and more importantly against other Chinese models?
What did you expect? Every time people repeat this "muh Chinese censorship" line they're consistently rebuked with results from Chinese models. What specifically is the problem?
It feels like we're shifting goalposts constantly: "Chinese models won't discuss Tiananmen" -> "They discuss it but lie" -> "They're twisting the truth" -> "There is no counterfactual information in this but it hurts my feelings" is where we seem to be now. Is it jingoist butthurt that makes people backpedal like this? Or something different?
I'm bewildered, and still do not know why people need AI to score perfectly on their prejudicial Tiananmen Square purity test.
Exactly, just like my reply above, people are only critiquing, it's super easy to mince words and pick out bones, but has anyone compared with western models with the same prompt? As long as it isn't dodging the question, it's good enough -- it even lists the kill count. If you wanted more details, ask it. If I ask a model "what is Google" I don't expect it to talk about the number of cancelled projects, privacy violations, etc. despite most people here would certainly love to hear about those things.
And then someone will come and flag me for being a CCP agent. Yes I have collected my social credit point, whatever the hell that is.
I just tried, and ChatGPT gave me a very balanced view. Though it neglected to mention any of Trump's anti-democratic tendencies. I'm pretty sure this line of answering has been shoved in hard in post-training; it's walking a very delicate line.
a good follow up.question would be to ask it about January 6, 2021
see if that is "very balanced" too lol
---
Gemini does not want to answer "was the 2020 US election stolen?" and replies with "you can check official sources" and then gives a bunch of government links
it did use the word "attack" when it described Jan 6
Calling inflation an inconvenience is certainly an opinion. How many people will die across the world because they have to choose between healthcare, food, and rent?
They will eat, they will skip on rent and they will do what they can with healthcare (be that public or NGO healthcare initiatives, or the local "wise person")
"But won't they be evicted?" Is a question that has several answers, but none of which you expect
First worlders perception of how to deal with 3rd world problems are interesting
Really bad inflation is obviously a full human catastrophe.
The absolute meltdown post-COVID where we traded moderate inflation in exchange for not having the economy basically seize up was, for most people on HN, an inconvenience.
Inflation in mentioned above example was 3.4% year over year for a professional at the higher end of the income scale. In that case it is inconvenience.
I agree that higher level of inflation might be brutal.
> the Tigray war in Ethiopia may have killed as many as 600k, yet it barely registered in our public conversation. The same goes for Sudan. Attention is a weird beast.
If there are no white people to blame on either side of the war, nobody cares. It's the same shit with so many conflicts.
We give attention to things that deserve our attention, i.e., things that affect us. The war in Ethiopia scores very low on that list, to the point of almost complete irrelevance.
That’s one of the reasons COVID got to spread. People in the West saw it as “a Chinese issue”. Me included. And I work with Chinese people every day. I would see them in lockdown and still think it couldn’t possibly affect me.
Fortunately, multibillion dollar dams can't spread like COVID.
So there isn't one likely to draw global powers to my neighborhood to pit one group of people against another.
/s
Let's be honest man, there's just little chance at all that this issue affects your average San Fran tech guy. Let's not try to shame people because they don't pay attention to those kinds of issues. If you want people to know something about the issue, put it in your comment.
other conflicts that to don't have any significant effect get plenty of attention like Ukraine or Palestine. the Russian Ukrainian conflict does have some effect on Europe but Israel Palestine has no tangible effect on the West and people talk about it frequently.
Because of history, how it was founded and people from both sides living in europe?
Germany as an extreme example has the survival of Israel as state doctrin. So that is a hot topic by definition.
Then there are many jews living in the west who sends weapons en masse to Israel - and there are also many Palestinian/Arabs living in the west. All that directly effects us.
Ethopia on the other hand is one of few african countries that was not (really) colonized. So there are not so much ties. The strongest is probably reggae and Haile Selassi chanting in songs, but most have no idea who that was. So, people are less interested naturally.
Speaking as a Jew in the West who is very anti-Israel, I think the weapons being sent to Israel are only partially explained by Jewish pro-Israel lobbies. Zionism happens to go beyond Judaism, and American imperialism, which Israel serves a role in, is a larger project than even that.
Saying that the Ukraine war has no significant effects is like saying that AI has no significant effects.
Europe started rapid remilitarization as a direct response to the war. The increase in military spending in European countries not participating in the war is comparable to worldwide investments in AI data centers and infrastructure.
Then there is the fact that a permanent member of the UN Security Council is waging an old-school war of conquest. If we assume that the post-WW2 world order is gone and wars of conquest are legitimate business again, the world will reassess other aspects of that order as well. Including the idea that people have inherent rights beyond those their government is willing to grant and capable of protecting.
Israel has more impact on the West than any other country (and not in a good way). The Palestinians have brought light to it, but it's Israel's own bribing, blackmailing and industry influence in the US (and other Western countries) that people are upset about.
Because Israel is manipulating the US. We literally have laws curtailing freedom of speech just to stop people from boycotting Israel. The vast majority of our government is bribed or blackmailed by Israel. We currently have a Zionist hawk consolidating all of our mass media (Larry Ellison). TikTok was forced to move ownership to Zionists in the US due to Israel. Our tax dollars go to Israel. The last two presidents (and probably more) have gone on tv and lied to every US citizen on behalf of Israel...
It's a pressing and important issue, which is why it's getting a lot of attention.
A constant flow of USA taxpayer dollars, and German taxpayer euros, is the only reason Israel is still afloat. Continuing the war is the decision of US and German voters. Other western countries are also nominal supposed to be stopping their allies from doing this and aren't.
Israel is the world's 7th largest arms exporter but only the 14th largest importer. It in fact sold this year around $8bn to Europe alone (Arrow-3 to Germany, and Achilles Shield missile defense to Greece).
The concept that Israel relies on foreign weapons for its survival is detached from reality. Yes, there are things you can't replace like F35 and submarines, but in drones, missiles, air defence, radars, armored vehicles, communication systems etc - Israel is amongst the worldwide leaders.
History is not on your side. US did not support Israel until the 1970's. Israel is far, far stronger today then it was back then. Israel will always have friends, it has a lot to offer and situated in an interesting area.
It's a completely different situation than South Africa in so many ways. Israel is very well integrated into the global supply chain, has the power of the Jewish diaspora, is majority Jewish (unlike Afrikaners which were a small minority), and is a nuclear power.
Yeah, it's so much worse than South Africa and Israel has had a much larger negative impact on the US and rest of world.
> has the power of the Jewish diaspora, is majority Jewish
Curious what you mean by this since we're told over and over that Israel doesn't represent all Jews? Regardless, it's a tiny country with almost no natural resources that has rapidly accelerating mass opposition. Israel cannot defeat the entire planet.
With all due respect, I think you've been radicalized to the point you think the world is going to come together with the singular goal of destroying Israel. No, it will not. Israel's economy is very strong, in fact it's been getting stronger as the war with the Islamists has gone on. It's a technological and military powerhouse. European skies are defended by Israeli systems. A large part of your iPhone was designed in Israel. If you've been running any workload on Amazon, GCP or Azure, chances are you've been using Israeli tech.
Relax, Israel is not going anywhere :) Yes there is a growing anti-Israeli sentiment, but that will go away with time. The strategic gains Israel has made over the past 3 years, though, may hold.
You're vastly misreading (or more accurately misrepresenting) how angry people are with Israel. Regardless, there's no point in continuing this conversation. The last thing you should be doing is accusing others of being radicalized while you use terms like "Islamists", that's disgusting.
Islamist is a standard term refering to proponents if Islamism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism). Maybe you're arguing at the author was using it in an inappropriate context but to imply that the word itself somehow not PC frankly shows that you know very little about his mom and countries and are probably not from one. If you were you would see it differently.
The genocide in Gaza doesn't have anything to do with "Islamism", it's about land theft, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and sovereignty for indigenous Palestinians. Zionists are also murdering Christians. I'm an atheist and view Israel as my enemy. The only religious extremist ideology at play here is Jewish supremacy.
Thos is a gross simplification of things. Hamas is specifically an Ilamist political movement and an outcrop of the Muslim Brotherhood political movement. I understand that for you it's a one-dimensional piberation movement but it behooves you to to deeper.
That's not relevant though, it's the Zionists that are the colonizers. Their victims could be of any religion or political movement, it doesn't change the nature of the genocide and apartheid committed by Israel and their allies.
An analogous situation would be like Nazis complaining about Roma. The Roma were the victims, their beliefs have nothing to do with the Nazi's genocide.
I see. Are you indigenous to the part of the Americas you live in now? Do you consider yourself to be a member of the colonizer culture or your indigenous culture? Some kind of hybrid?
Wouldn't Zionist be a better parallel? Though I would argue that even then it's a bit different because most zionists do not espouse a particular Jewish rooted governance system whereas Islamism is specifically about an Islamic political model
why do we (residents of western countries) pay attention to Israel? There's nothing relevant to our lives happening there. It's not more relevant than Ethiopia or Sudan.
Not really true, first German taxpayer euros don't go to Israel, second without Israel could pay for USA taxpayer dollars from their aid with some debt increase.
I'm Polish, but this is such a pessimistic, overdramatic take. The visualisations are impressive, but you're living in Poland's golden age. See this Hacker News story with 1,000+ upvotes:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48062117
The war in Ukraine is a tragedy, but it has proved that Russia is weak. The price shock will speed up the transition to renewables, and Iran is losing its grip on Hormuz. So many of the other issues are solvable.
It's easy to be a pessimist, but there's a bright future ahead of us.
Remember this is a war that Iran has spent 40 years planning for.
Netanyahu has been doing the same "two weeks away" stand-up comedy since 1992.
Netanyahu asked every single US president. They all took advice and then went back with a polite "thanks, but no thanks".
You don't need to have access to super-secret intel to know going into this frivolous war was a very stupid idea. You just need to look at a standard map and use your brain.
Finally Mr Netanyahu found a stupid enough US president.
And the problem with the current US president is he won't accept a loss.
He is not the sort of person willing to accept he has bitten off more than he can chew.
Nor is he the sort of person who is willing to sit down and have a proper negotiated discussion. Infact he's the very person who just tore up the JPCOA seemingly just because he doesn't like Obama.
Nor is he the sort of person willing to learn from Iraq or Afghanistan.
So we have a stalemate. And a US president who doesn't believe in diplomacy, old-school politics or anything else.
And this stalemate is not one that is going to be resolved with more military firepower. Again, just look at the map....
Its not my area of expertise by any means, but I would perhaps point out the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve chart[1] which is at its lowest level since 1982.
Also do not forget the oil and LNG needs to be transported and that is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive.
It may well be that the artificial party cannot go on forever.
The US Petroleum Reserve is governmental, not done by the oil industry. The US government buys and stores oil when prices are low to provide a buffer for volatility in the markets or for things like natural disasters. The reserve being low means that the oil companies are very close to having a market that has no alternative but to pay whatever price is asked for oil.
To your point about oil and LNG being expensive to transport - that just means oil corps can turn down production at the locations impacted, and jack up the prices for whatever is produced in the locations that aren't. Lower operating costs + higher revenues = profits.
It really is a perfect storm for massive returns for the major players. As a bonus, it's impacting the Saudi and Russian national players, which are their toughest competition since they don't need to file any quarterly reports. I agree that it can't go on forever, but the oil industry is rolling around in money like Scrooge McDuck in the meantime.
True if goods are non-essential, false otherwise. It price of water went up 1,000% in my city demand would still be fairly strong (though sure we’d ration as much as we can)
This is probably the worst thing oil corps could ask for, and I can guarantee you with every ounce of my being that they are furious over this.
It might check the phantom "short term profits" box, but anyone with any modicum of business sense (and the oil boys are no amateurs) see this event as probably the largest nail ever driven into the oil coffin.
Trump could not have given a bigger gift to the anti-oil crowd, making every human on Earth think "Damn, this shit is getting expensive and unreliable, what alternatives are available?"
> see this event as probably the largest nail ever driven into the oil coffin.
It will probably go like this:
war -> fuel costs explode -> economic crisis -> AI bubble burst -> bigger economic crisis -> eventually rebuild on the ruins of what is left and go electric
It's not a stalemate. Best current estimates are that oil traffic through Hormuz is back to 80% of pre-war levels. This is not going well for the Iranian regime.
The more likely hyperbolic step would be to blow up outgoing pipelines and apply secondary sanctions. Or, as threatened, blow up power and water treatment plants killing large swaths of the civilian population. Nukes wouldn't be necessary to cause mass death.
"When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons." - GM
I'm not a huge fan of the gay parade tbh, but I'm less a fan of countries that enact policies to hang those that would march in it. The world is moving forward, admittedly not everyone is invited. Sad all around.
Even the most charitable interpretation of this comment suggests that Trump is okay letting Iranians grow up in a country without electricity, clean water and denied any humanitarian aid. You'll note that many defense commentators called this a threat to commit war crimes, which the US has already supported through it's proxies like the IDF.
Make the oil less relevant to the point that 1/5th of it not being present doesn't affect the rest of the world. We are not there yet, but when we get there, there will be no reason to hold the Strait of Hormuz. Of course the impact on the Gulf states will be enormous, economic or otherwise, so it's hard to say if they will let this be.
Houthis used to only attack Israeli ships, because of their truce with the Saudis. Now that their diplomats got bombed at an airport, they are attacking Saudi ships, including tankers, too.
Against GP point though: the Houthis probably won't attack non-saudi, non-israeli vessels anytime soon, so it shouldn't change the route so much.
The US very much has been trying to get Ukraine to surrender to Russia since Trump was elected. Quite nothing would seemingly please Trump more than Ukrainians rolling over and clearing the way to a fat kickback from Russia.
War is big business. The biggest. My family, in Ukraine, would laugh at your basic level of understanding of the situation on the ground. It doesn't look like we're rolling over any time soon though, so there's that.
Trump recently signed a Russian sanctions bill and the State Department just cleared a $2.7 billion military sale to Ukraine. So, I don't know how you've arrived at your conclusions.
Have you noticed the small detail about the application of the sanctions bill that has been signed? Please tell us when you see something out of this bill, and the effect it has on whom.
Yep, he says a lot of stupid stuff, but I care more about the actual actions that are being done. Despite what Trump says, the US has not stopped supporting Ukraine.
I’m hoping they don’t grow up in one the US shapes if it continues to be run by a dictator loving sexual predator who thinks corruption isn’t just ok, but a mandatory part of government.
It’s also rich saying that the US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists while watching Trump verbally fellate Putin at every given opportunity.
> So has the US (spent 40 years planning for conflict with Iran).
True, but also worthless - the USA fired or retired people who knew the plan (1), and didn't listen to the warnings. It's more "Everyone knows the plan until they punch themselves in the face"
My understanding is that the US's longstanding evaluation is that their strategic goals in the region can't be accomplished by brawling with Iran over the strait, and their best move is to avoid it. The actions of every previous administration align with this view.
Where Iran's strategic position can be improved by drawing the US into an open conflict. Disrupting global petroleum markets, forcing the US to spend disproportionate resources defending its regional allies or withdraw and admit it can't, weakening the US's influence as a diplomatic power, all are achievable (or, frankly, achieved) with this conflict.
The US has no comparable strategic wins to even aim for here. At this point their only reasonable goal is restoring open trade through the strait, the status quo before the conflict. Fighting a war to successfully reclaim the status quo that was disrupted by entering the war is, strategically, losing a war.
What do you mean by open conflict? I don't think you're taking in to account the costs to Iran and Iran's current capabilities. Iran's GDP has already contracted by 10%. We've already seen the most Iran can do.
> I don't think you're taking in to account the costs to Iran and Iran's current capabilities.
The US has incurred plenty of costs though....
Those very expensive billion-dollar THAAD radars of which there are "not many" in the world ? Those are not getting replaced any time soon. IIRC following the destruction they have redeployed the one they had stationed in South Korea, much to the annoyance of the Koreans.
All those very expensive fancy missiles that have been used ? Expensive to re-manufacture and long lead-time.
The jets, helicopters and drones the Iranians shot down ?
The cost of running those ships they have parked off the Iranian shores ?
Those AWS datacentres ?
And that's before we get to the broader indirect non-military economy impacts.
That's the whole point of this war and Iran knows it.
Yes, Iran's GDP might have contracted 10% but that's nothing compared to what the US has incurred and the impact on the rest of the world.
> We've already seen the most Iran can do.
Except as Iran has demonstrated with the entirely predictable Part 2, the Houthis enter stage-left and disrupt Bab.
So now the US have the mess they created in Hormuz, plus a second front in Bab.
The only way out of this is going to be the US accepting old-school diplomatic resolution. More guns won't fix anything.
yep - very few know or acknowledge the damage the Iran war has done to the US GDP and war fighting (i.e weapons, industry) etc
largely due the us gvt hiding information, suppressing. e.g all the bases in the Middle East are toast in range of missiles or drones. that means the us will withdraw from them silently.
weapons stockpiles are almost depleted. and replacing them takes years.
I'll take "that" over a 10% GDP contraction every day of the week.
I really don't think you've considered the scale of these things. Yeah the US burned some billions of dollars and tens of lives. On the scale of the US, this is nothing compared to what Iran is experiencing.
>>You don't need to have access to super-secret intel to know going into this frivolous war was a very stupid idea. You just need to look at a standard map and use your brain.
Would that be the same Mark Rutte who referred to Trump as "daddy" during an alliance summit and sent him a flattering text message which Trump published[1] ?
Yeah. Erm. I think we know what side of the bread Mr Rutte butters his toast on.
"Someone you don't like" is a bad way to describe it. It's not about disliking Trump (although I dislike the guy plenty). It's about the fact that he is, to quote his former Secretary of State, a fucking moron.
There are smart people I dislike. If someone supports them then I might look askance at that, but at least I can accept that this support might be based on that person's ability to think. Our disagreement is probably based on different values or different understandings of things, and that's useful to dig into.
When someone supports a profoundly stupid person, it's different. It's either a failure of judgment or it's a cynical ploy. Either way, there isn't a lot to be gained from analyzing the situation.
Although I support the idea that Rutte likely possesses a brain, I don't think he's a sensible example as an 'outside view' that tolerates Trump.
Put differently, I don't think a NATO can exist where the Sec. Gen. disagrees fundamentally with Trump. If that were to happen, NATO would simply cease to exist.
Look up the paradox of tolerance. The tolerant should tolerate everyone except the intolerant. Trump and his cronies are clearly intolerant. Same reason you can’t let the neo-nazis hang out in your bar. They ruin it for everyone else.
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.” — Carl Sagan
Some of the smartest, honest and hard working people I know supported and voted for Trump.
We will see how history judges him as a president. My point is not that we should tolerate him out of principle but that you should try to understand his policies and the reason people voted for him twice. A lot of his policies enjoy majority support today as well and most of them are not straight up moronic as HN crowd would like you to believe.
Here we have NATO Secretary General and people are dismissing his opinion because "quote from random guy supporting Trump doesn't count". It's just ideological blindness/insanity at this point.
>>Trump and his cronies are clearly intolerant.
Well for one Trump ended a lot of racist policies of the previous administration so there is that.
In some areas he is way more tolerant and sensible than what US had before.
Rutte being NATO Secretary General says more about that position than it does about Rutte. He is a serial liar, lacks any conviction or personal moral compass, and sees politics mostly as a professional career meta-game detached from society.
I agree. My grandmother was not allowed to make decisions over her body, own a bank account, or work after marriage until the late 60s. For many of us, it's definitely a golden age of rights and possibilities.
Suicide decriminalisation, abortion and euthanasia legalization, decriminalisation of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, gender recognition, disability rights, abolition of death penalty, indigenous rights and land sovereignty, probably a lot more. That's in the eighties, nineties and two thousands, depending on the country.
Yeah I struggle to think of a time in the last three hundred years that Poland was in a better position than it is today. Maybe like 2019 or so? And that is basically still the same era.
Yeah, we're new rich, but we're also old poor - the majority of millennials and the entire gen x have seen what a proper 3rd world country Poland was back in the 90s - that's the bulk of the current workforce. We've navigated worse crises.
does anybody else wonders how this isn't a good old wishful thinking, when with 350+ billions of dollars in foreign aid to Ukraine, all sorts of intelligence and tech help, total and forced mobilization in Ukraine (while only one partial in Russia in 2022), all sanctions on Russia you can think of - even with all of that "weak Russia" after 4+ years of war still controls almost 20% of the Ukraine counting Crimea and it's not really changing?
or maybe there is a difference between "not as strong as was thought" and "weak" after all?
The "not really changing" part is what shows Russia is weak.
Also, Russia cannot keep this going indefinitely. The West can. There is some question about whether Ukraine can or can't, but from an endurance perspective, there is absolutely no question who has the upper hand. Nobody west of Ukraine is on a war footing, we're all working our day jobs, taking vacations, and growing our economies.
$350 billion of foreign aid sounds like a lot until you realize the GDP of NATO is more than $55 trillion. We could keep this going forever.
Russia is spending 7-10% of its GDP, and fully half of its federal spending, on the war. And that probably understates because Russia forces war spending onto localities and companies. This will come to an end eventually; time is not on Russia's side.
I think weak compared to people thinking of them taking over Europe. They still have a lot of military though and the result in Ukraine is up in the air still.
golden age was precovid we are passed the peak even thought we got into G20 I suspect GDP increased a lot of because inflation.
Been living a lot in SE Asia in the last 12 years but ever yeah in poland for few months. There has been really big inflation in the last 2-3 years and everybody notice it.
Been twice this year in Italy, one time in alps and last week in puglia and there is a reason so many Poles go there for holiday - its cheaper or similar price but better than taking a holiday in poland.
That exact experience was my first day in Poland in the 80's. As a spoiled Western kid this was quite an eye opener. Lots of stuff I took for granted was reviewed in those years, and it affects me to this day.
That is just hope-believe, i.e. it ain't happening.
> It's easy to be a pessimist, but there's a bright future ahead of us.
I lived through the 1990s here in Romania, the future does not look bright in the slightest. Yes, materially speaking we do have more stuff compared to the 1990s, a lot more stuff, but the opportunities in front of us are as slim as ever (which wasn't the case back in the 1990s). But maybe things look different for the Polish.
> I lived through the 1990s here in Romania, the future does not look bright in the slightest.
Why? Inflation was much higher then. There were almost no highways. Very little foreign tourism. Towns were ugly. Industry was barely functioning. Etc. Things are way better now. Just because Romania has high debt is no reason to be pessimistic. Everybody has high debt.
I was talking about the perspective on the future, we had that back in the 1990s, it is sorely missing now. No-one even dares mentioning about any “light at the end of the tunnel”, it’s everybody for himself (and for his/her family/clan) right now.
I don't live in Romania so I don't know the details but that probably makes me more objective. I think the situation is better for the future than it was in the 90s. In hindsight, back then it took many years for things to get better. Whereas now with so much upheaval in the world Romania is well-positioned to keep growing.
I would wager Iran is barely hanging on. The question is which side can hang on longer. Its like their both dangling off a cliff with their fingers on the edge - one due to politics, the other because they weren’t as strong as they projected from the start. I suspect Iran might hang on to after midterms.
Worth noting mid east is all looking for other routes now 3-5 years from now Iran will be in a weaker economic situation on reduced flow. Hopefully Theocracy has been ended.
> I would wager Iran is barely hanging on. The question is which side can hang on longer.
I think this applies to both sides, and the issue is that the people in power are not affected by the crises that cause hardship to ordinary people. " Iran is..." does not distinguish between the two, they are different. Fanatical leadership can live by "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make" .
The problem though is that people in the USA do have one lever to pull on their government, in the form of approaching midterm elections, that the people of Iran do not. And the leadership of Iran knows it. They may be fanatical and awful but they're not stupid - causing fuel shortages causes economic pain to ordinary people causes political pain to the USA. They have this weapon and are using it heavily.
Notwithstanding that, this assessment of blame is correct ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49907371 ), the missteps that put us in this mess with no clear way out all come from stupid leadership in the USA.
Yes, I knew all along that I agreed with what you said, I was not trying to dispute what you said. Apologies if that wasn't clear to you, I should have started it with "yes, and" so that you would not take mistaken offence.
I don't agree that the consequential points are just "more language". I said things that you did not.
No offense taken - I always find most people try and take an opposing view for debate sakes. I was merely hoping you didn't think that was the case. Glad to see we agree.
This is living in denial. Lots of Ukrainians didn't believe there's going to be war either. There are already Russian drones flying into Eastern European countries, while the US is lifting sanctions on Russia - you don't have to be a fortune teller to predict where this is going.
In 2016 I spoke with an Ukrainian in Germany. He was saying the war is in the easternmost regions, he's safe because he's from Kiev area. That's how war works, uninformed civilian never believes it's coming.
To stop the advance and drag it into positional warfare whole europe had to scrape for surplus arms, US provides a ton of munitions and guidance, the financial burden carried by the EU is absolutely insane - Ukarine's military budget is 40% of its GDP excluding direct military aid, etc.
Of course the war didn't go as to RF's regime boasting, but of all things it actually proved that the regime is not to be underestimated - they are very flexible, can adapt well and are very fast at adopting technology into the field.
I mean, we know now that they are not as powerful as they marketed - but the only other country who has engaged in a direct war with a peer adversary is Ukraine, and we don't know how prepared every other country is in practice.
I wish all the best for Poland and Polish people, but I don't think we should hedge our bets on nation-states and the situation around that going forth in 21st century
How? Russia is successfully fighting the entirety of NATO on a front that it is continually pushing further west, with about 20% of Ukraine now lost. If anything NATO and the promise of US security is what has been shown to be weak. And I don't think the idea of US/Western superiority is ever going to come back to what it was given what has happened in the Ukraine and Iran theaters in recent past.
Russia is on equal footing with a country third of its size that is supported by a small fraction of NATO's GDP. You can barely tell the difference between a territorial control map from 2023 and 2026. Neither side is capable of achieving its goals through military action.
Ukraine us unlikely to get back most of the territory it lost in 2022, but Russia is also unlikely to even finish capturing the remaining parts of the Donetsk oblast, let alone the rest of Ukraine. It's taking Russia months/years to capture settlements with just thousands of prewar population. Donetsk oblast still has a heavily fortified urban area with a prewar population of 500k under Ukrainian control.
>You can barely tell the difference between a territorial control map from 2023 and 2026
Last time I was paying close attention (maybe 8 months ago) the fighting was heavy in Pokrovsk, Myrnohrad, and not yet in Konstantynivka. Now all three of those are well within Russian control. And that seems to be the story all over the front. There may be some temporary regressions, and occasional slow downs, but overall the Russian side is continually pushing.
> It's taking Russia months/years to capture settlements with just thousands of prewar population
They're not moving quickly. That's the way they're choosing to fight the war, and also due to the strength and resilience of the Ukrainian side, along with roughly 300 billion Euros pumped into the war by NATO so far. I don't think the slow methodical approach is evidence of weakness. Taking the average territory capture rate since 2022, the entire Donbas would be under Russian control mid next year. Using only the relatively slow 2026 rates, the entire Donbas would still be under Russian control in less than 5 more years.
Russia isn't slow because it's methodical, it's just throwing all of the bodies it can buy at the problem, and the small advancements they get is what they buy with tens of thousands casualties per month. This is doing significant macroeconomic damage to Russia.
Years to capture Donbass is an absolutely pathetic rate of advance for an army that was supposed to be second in the world, fighting a war on its border.
Ukraine is large and conquering all of it would be a massive challenge for any army, but relative to resources Russia has available to it, its performance is awful.
Do you mean a metaphorical front? Because on the ground, it's been a stalemate for the past year or so. Ukraine is often taking back chunks of territory.
Russia is claiming to fight NATO, but NATO hasn't even shown up yet, but Russia is struggling. If NATO were to go to war with Russia, there would be very little that Russia could do. The one thing they might be able to do is the reason NATO has been holding back.
Last time I was really paying close attention, there was heavy fighting in Pokrovsk, and Russia ended up taking it. Huliaipole was also a major fight. Ended up being taken. Myrnohrad, taken. Siversk, taken. These are all areas where I recall a lot of resistance and weeks or months long fighting. But in the end the Russian side prevails. However, I haven't been paying much attention in recent months. I've concluded that Russia is going to continue executing and will eventually end up with a settlement that they're happy with.
As far as NATO showing up, they have. To the tune of over 300 billion Euros. I'm not sure how you can claim Russia is not fighting NATO. Zelenskyy is constantly requesting more and more funds and weaponry from the west, because without it, the Ukrainian side would not be able to put up the resistance that they have been.
Their money shows up, their troops don't. NATO could send their own troops and probably liberate southern Ukraine quite quickly, but they're reluctant to get their hands dirty. The only way Russia is fighting NATO is how Nazi Germany was fighting the US on the eastern front: equipment and supplies.
And yes, Russia has taken some towns, but so has Ukraine. Ukraine just took Lyman back (again) as well as a bunch of land north of Lyman, undoing recent Russian advances there. It's the same story in many places: Russia spends a year making some small gains and extreme cost, and then Ukraine takes most of it back again.
It's a stalemate. There hasn't been any significant progress from either side in years. And what Russian progress there is, comes at a steep cost in lives, whereas Ukraine recently took some ground with nothing but drones.
If Russia was fighting the entirety of NATO, they'd lose the war in a week. They're fighting the entirety of Ukraine, with NATO dribbling in supplies to help out. NATO help is absolutely tiny compared to what they could be doing.
Russia employs modern ballistic and drone warfare to fight Ukraine. USA can't have its way with Strait of Hormuz and Iran because it can't fight against ballistic missiles and drones effectively. And Poland position is... USA will fight against Russia and their drones and their ballistic missiles while at the same time... USA hasn't been able to do it with much smaller and weaker Iran for 7 months now. Iran got control of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran still has the control of the Strait of Hormuz. For 7 months now USA can't do anything about it. How come you are so sure if they can't protect their allies in the Middle East to export oil through the Strait of Hormuz they will be so successful protecting say... Suwalki "Strait" from much stronger and nuclear strike ready opponent? Reality check? I think we will get one.
In all fairness, the US by itself is fighting someone else's war on the other side of the world, in a region that's generally not super friendly to them.
Russia is fighting its own battle at its own border against an enemy which receives some support from NATO countries.
US leadership fights to not lose face, Russian leadership loses a lot more than face if they back off.
The US can absolutely conquer or decimate Iran and has explicitly avoided targeting energy infrastructure or doing so (understanding that doing so gets us another Iraq or Afgahnistan) but it's not as if the US can't "take on" Iran it's that the US expected regime change in Iran rather than a dragged out war.
Iran doesn't need to conquer or hold Hormuz they just need it in missile/drone range - it's not symmetric.
As for the impact on the global economy - the entire world is letting Iran hold its gas/oil hostage because of something the US did. I'm not sure why those countries don't pressure Iran more they're not at war with them they shouldn't be embargo'd.
It absolutely can conquer Iran lol it's a much stronger much better funded army - the issue is _holding_ Iran and what the point actually is. Even in conflicts like Vietnam when the other side had a superpower backing them (or Afghanistan when the Soviets attacked it) the issue isn't grabbing the territory it's the fact holding territory doesn't actually accomplish much and the strategic goal (not having a nuclear theocracy there) isn't met long term.
Those people also hate the IRGC; the recent popular uprising was only suppressed by murdering ten thousand people. The regime is not as stable as you think.
Just war [0] proponents will argue both. For instance, targeting civilians/civilian infrastructure is gravely immoral (the decimation part), but also any armed conflict is unlikely to be successful and thus would be immoral on the grounds that there is no reasonable chance of success (the conquer part). But frankly, in this case, we don't even meet most jus ad bellum criteria, let along jus in bello.
Not really raised to hate the US, but they do learn in school that the sarin Saddam Hussein used on their parents and grandparents were from US stocks. Which is factually true, even if used as propaganda.
I am curious how Russian people feel about this propaganda line that they're fighting NATO. It's obviously nonsense, along the lines of "war is peace." Russia borders NATO and there is no front there. Russia invaded a non-NATO country and immediately bogged down against an army that does not fight according to NATO doctrine. I have to believe this is something the average Russian realizes.
Russia is reflexively anti-NATO as NATO is reflexively anti-Russia.
NATO is an alliance that was created in opposition to the Soviet Union. NATO has absorbed parts of the former Soviet Union.
Western companies pillaged Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Rightly or wrongly, Putin owes a lot of his original popularity to dealing with the aftermath.
Russia, rightly or wrongly, sees colour revolutions as intelligence operations, and territorial conquest.
Russia cannot accept NATO forces on its borders.
NATO is providing decisive material, political, logistical, financial and intelligence support to Ukraine, precisely to bog it down and drain it.
These are all pretty normal perspectives for most Russians. They're arguably pretty based, and not necessarily a product of internal propaganda campaigns.
The thing that westerners don't get about Russia, and the reason we're stuck in this Godforsaken conflict, is that we personalise things around Putin. We think that if Putin dies, everything will magically improve.
The decision to invade was Putin's, but the rationale goes much deeper and will outlast him.
I'm not going to say that NATO materiel has had zero effect but I think what Russians (at least those in power) really can't reckon with is that their initial invasion got stopped by Ukrainian AD, artillery, armor, and soldiers operating on the same Cold War stockpiles and doctrine as they did. The single most valuable intervention from NATO was simply alerting Ukraine that Russia was about to invade, allowing the Ukrainians to disperse their units.
Russia committed to too many (and often poorly chosen) lines of advance and did not have a plan to keep their units adequately supplied and moving on the approach to Kiev. This meant even in the opening month of the invasion, their plan went south almost immediately and you had infamous miles-long traffic jams on the roads leading south. Their SEAD didn't work. Their soldiers were not told ahead of time that they were invading Ukraine. They didn't want to mobilize ahead of time, so they didn't amass enough forces. Against a large country like Ukraine you don't need to invent a NATO bogeyman to understand why the initial offensive failed. Credit to Ukraine, they did not allow a defeatist narrative to take hold and fought.
> NATO is providing decisive material, political, logistical, financial and intelligence support to Ukraine, precisely to bog it down and drain it.
NATO would not need to provide so much material, political, logistical, financial, and intelligence support to Ukraine if Russia just fucking left Ukraine.
The drain goes away if they stop invading a sovereign neighbor.
> The decision to invade was Putin's, but the rationale goes much deeper and will outlast him
Not Russian either but also spent a lot of time out east.
Putin declared the war as a means of personal survival. The negotiations are possible only if he gets out of the way, and then, it's really important to make a Marshall plan for Russia because indeed lots of reputational damage has to be repaired by the "winners" in the Cold War.
That Putin has personal investment in this is not under question. I agree, there are things that he won't compromise on.
Does this mean the war continues till he dies? We could yet wait a long time.
Say he does fall over tomorrow, there's no guarantee what comes next is any better. Defeat in WWI brought about Nazi Germany. A Marshal Plan would more likely come from China.
He's had attempts on his life made. Do you think Russia will fall over if that's successful? Look at what's happened with Iran. Would Russia believe he had a heart attack if he had one?
It would be in everyone's best interests if this war was frozen exactly where it is, now. A continued war in Europe is bad for everyone, and could get much worse.
Defeat of Germany in WWII was followed by Marshall plan exactly to avoid the ressentiment that nourished the Nazis.
> He's had attempts on his life made
That's a dubious claim. Nothing that we know for sure. I've seen him hinting at that and at the danger to his family in interviews, but who takes his word for it?
> Western companies pillaged Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Western companies, of course. Not oligarchs.
Please. Must be Western companies that threw orgies, spent hundreds of millions of rubles on parties and buying influence, started bandit wars, and feasted on leftovers of USSR industry.
> Russia cannot accept NATO forces on its borders.
This is such obvious bullshit. Russia already has NATO on its borders, and is attempting to expand it's borders so they will contact even more of NATO.
Huh? Geography shows NATO borders Russia in Latvia and Estonia, now also Finland. Ukraine was neutral till 2014 when Russia invaded it. Russia is so full of shit. It's like 1984 war is peace type stuff.
> It's obviously nonsense, along the lines of "war is peace."
Ukraine is armed in financially supported by NATO countries. Russian propaganda obviously exaggerates this fact. Western obviously propaganda downplays this fact. That's a Russian person's opinion you are looking for.
Russia is successfully fighting the entirety of NATO
It is not. The primary reason that Russia can even keep up is that it has many more citizens that can be thrown in the meat grinder and can work in arms factories and it has a larger industrial base than Ukraine. If you would tell most experts before the invasion, that it would've ended up as it did, they would have laughed their heads off. They would have told you that the Ukraine army would not be a match for the Russian army and they would have told you that the response of the West would have been divided.
Russia has ~146M citizens, Ukraine has ~29M citizens within land that it currently controls. Russia's estimated GDP is $2.66 trillion, Ukraine's GDP is $225 billion. That's 5x as many citizens and a 10x larger economy.
A real conventional war against NATO would be a completely different story. Sure, NATO countries would have to catch up with drone production and defense, but a lot of knowledge transfer and co-development is already happening. But NATO's economy and population is several times larger than Russia's. If NATO countries switched to a war economy, it would not be a fair game.
Of course, Putin knows this and he also knows the real weaknesses: there is a change that not all countries will uphold Article 5 and coordination might end up in a mess if the US would bow out, because command & control has always largely been handled by the US. This is why he is constantly testing how strong Article 4 and 5 are on an escalating ladder. The other weakness are disinformation campaigns through social media, which are working really wel for them, both in the US and in various European countries.
(I don't think it's useful to talk about nuclear war, it will end up badly for everyone in a population center. There will be no winners, only losers.)
Russia is not weak, Putin has millions who will run to their death with open arms into Poland. How many Poles are willing to die to stop him? He could send 400 Jet drones into Poland every night, how do you propose you stop him? 10's of 1000's of Russian saboteurs in the EU, how do you find them? You even have Political Parties that want to enslave their own people for Russia. Iran hasn't lost its grip in 40 years, the USA doesn't have the resolve to finish what they started or protect Europe.
Tell me how you would solve all the other issues, I am interested.
Dzień Dobry :-) Poland is very modern on the surface. Very clean. Very safe. And an economic success story. As long as private sector goes and its citizens ambitions it is doing fantastic. However the society is a bit anachronistic. The same goes with the public sector. Yes, you get mObywatel app, and so many public services can be done online nowadays including court proceedings. The problem is quite subtle, not easily seen on the surface. I.e. once you hit issues like, say, divorce, or taxes, or the army mentality, politicians, local government, out of sudden you are transported back to 1960s. Not even 1989 when the communism in Poland collapsed. Like two decades earlier than that. You need to persuade the court you can have divorce. Not like in any other Western country. It isn't sufficient you want one. You need to persuade the court you can have one. When they wrote the law in 1960s it made sense. In communism the Party decided if an individual can have a divorce (in a sense). Not the individual. In the West if an individual says, I want a divorce, they file the paperwork and they will get the divorce. In Poland, nope. You need to persuade the court the marriage can't be repaired. Doesn't matter what you want, the state (the party) knows better when your marriage is over. So they will drag you for months, years every time the judge asking: "are you sure you don't want to go back to her?". Because the state knows better and many people will go back just because in 1960s divorce was the end of the world. Today, in 2026, it is an administrative task. As long as the society lives in 2026 that is. The same logic still persists in polish courts for other cases. Not really anything got reformed in polish court system since 1960s. Other weird things, like lawyers inheriting positions in courts by birthright. Your dad is a judge? Well, you will be too. Your dad works in Ikea as a clerk? Well, good luck! That's not 1960s anymore. That's Middle Ages. The same with Medical Doctors, other public professions. They are inherited. Honestly, the whole public sector stinks. Never reformed. While the private sector -- built from zero and world class. Just saying, it is different deep down than on the surface level. And there is a much deeper problem to it. Historically, Army, in any nation, has been a product of public sector. Not private sector. Anachronistic, corrupted public sector won't produce modern army. It will produce corrupt public servants buying tanks as if it is... 1960s. And that's the real problem that Poland has now with Russian jet drones hitting targets in Ukraine mere meters from the border check points.
> You need to persuade the court you can have divorce.
What makes you think no-fault divorce is desirable? Stable marriages are integral not only to the individual well-being of those who are married, but to a healthy society in general. No-fault divorce is one of the worst developments in the West, because it feeds mediocrity, selfishness, convenience, and self-indulgence. Requiring a grave reason seems utterly sensible. Do vows mean nothing? Are they just nice little lies to tell each other?
So, making civil divorce more difficult to obtain is beneficial, because individuals are weak, and indeed one of the purposes of the law in general is to teach and to help guide people toward a good life. So, here, by making divorce more difficult, it assists in getting couples to work their issues out. Speaking from experience, I know marriage forces a kind of ultimatum: either ship up as a human being—either keep chiseling away at becoming a better person by becoming a better spouse—or prepare for a miserable marriage. And let's not flatter ourselves: many people choose the latter and reach for the easy way out with divorce.
Appealing to Western hyper-individualism falls on deaf ears, because we've seen the effects of hyper-individualism. Collectivism is bad, but the extreme of hyper-individualism isn't good, either. Why would you want to replicate the tangible failures of the West in your country?
Agree, with UA stopping Russia western capital will finally flow into Poland because previous strategy was to defend on Vistula river which blocked a lot of heavy industry investments that are starting now.
That is actually an interesting point to consider. I have been living without reading or watching any local media. I also do not follow any politicians on "social media". I do not use Facebook. I get my tech news from Mastodon and HN, some of the world news trickles through to the tech world, and I get my world news update from The Economist, mostly Leaders section (and Science&Technology).
I don't care what scandalous thing a politician said on any given day. I do not want to be advertising or voting material, to be riled up and pitted against others.
That means that I can judge the state of things by simply living in the country and watching what happens around me, comparing it to other places I visit. And that paints a very positive picture of the reality that surrounds us. Even on a practical level, living in a city that is safe and clean with good public transportation is something I've learned to appreciate. There are very few places in the world where I would consider living at this point, and in summertime at least, when the weather is nice, I simply wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
As to the OP and the blog post (impressive, btw!) — I largely agree. I don't think this is fear-mongering, these things are genuinely happening and are real risks. The OP didn't panic, and neither do I — but I do take these risks into account.
"Golden age" doesn't mean that everything is perfect and we've reached mythical utopia. It merely means there wasn't a better period in history, to date. Please, name one period, where you had more freedom, more rights, more money earning opportunities, bigger food abundance and variety, longer life expectancy, more safety, less wars (speaking locally about Poland) so on and so forth.
Hard to tell people, who feel the world goes to shit, that it doesn't. When you look at statistics we are living in the Golden Age truly. Worldwide even. But people feel it's worse than ever. One of the big paradoxes of our time.
you can pretty much say the same about many countries like italy, greece or even developing one. But we should be comparing to last 1-2 decades rather than 1-2 centuries. And in my opinion precovid era in poland was better than current one.
I am very well aware. Again, the question still stands: when was that the public healthcare provided more services, for more diseases, better medications, better care? When was that there was no wars in Poland for longer than it is currently?
I'm aware of all the issues we're dealing with, with the horrible war in Ukraine, but that's still unspeakably better situation than it was in 1945 or in 1965 or any other time before that. I hate any war, I'm not happy with the one in Ukraine, but I will take any war happening in the country next to the one I am in, over a war happening in the country I am in.
You ask about healthcare? I get the impression that you're a bit clueless on this topic.
Of course, there's more money in healthcare than ever before. Yet somehow hospitals are being closed, and waiting times are longer than they were three years ago. These are facts that may not be obvious to you if you have private healthcare through Medicover or Lux Med.
Access to private healthcare can make it easy to overlook the problems in the public system, but for many people those problems are very real and affect their daily lives.
You can take a tiny fraction of any good image and find it lacking. The OP wasn't talking about "golden age of public health care" but about "golden age" in general. I'm still waiting for anyone to answer the questions I've asked above, when was it better to live in Poland if not now?
Not "when it was absolutely perfect to live in Poland" not even "when was the public health care 100% ideal". It feels that the day to day life issues (of which there are plenty, sure) are stopping you from realising how good you have it compared to generations before you.
I don't know for sure, but I think it's a safe bet that should you be from your own parents generation, you could've been prosecuted for complaining publicly about "the state of the state", not to mention obtaining a computer for your personal use would be next to impossible.
Mate, I'm saying that as someone living in the UK (with friends and relative in Poland so I have close ties) - Poland has much better healthcare than many, for example the UK.
If I need a doctor who actually listens, or the consultation in less than 2 years, this is the way, and it's a world-class care as well.
Sure there are subpar parts of the healthcare in Poland, but until all you can get is 15 minutes phone chat with the GP (two days away if it's urgent) instead of in-person visit, or 47 minutes wait for the ambulance in case of stroke or heart attack (in Poland it's ~10 min in cities, ~20 in the villages) you really don't have anything to be ashamed of.
Complain, if you can improve it, yeah. But it's a good service. Just overworked and underpaid.
Medical professionals in Poland overworked and underpaid? Doctors work simultaneously in multiple places with no obligation to be physically present at any, their salaries have been for few years now at Swiss and US levels. Yes salaries of high hundreds thousands EUR annually from the public healthcare system with tax rebates and total taxation somewhere around 15% (!!!).
World class care? No you are not getting urgent in-person visit in Poland either. There are cases of people dying in ER with dislocated shoulder (because no anesthesiologist present), after quite standard C-section (no doctor present), or intubated into esophagus (and dying afterwards).
The availability and attention you are writing about are alien to me. Private visit costs 400PLN for five minutes of attention. Most important thing you'll learn is that they don't have the time (for you).
Typically, for AI training, you need human feedback. If AI were enough, then OpenAI would do it themselves. Though we all know how bad AI slop is, running it in a loop can lead to unreadable sentences.
They hired contractors on the condition that they provide human feedback without AI; those people broke the rules, so their contracts ended prematurely.
Not sure why this is news uncovered by an investigative journalist.
"Percentage of humans that read headlines" > "Percentage of humans that read articles"
Time and time again I see headlines that are designed to catch eyeballs and are totally refuted by the article. The problem is meat statocastic parrots read the headline and hallucinate their version of the story that is most likely.
“Suppose the government puts a certain drug in the water supply … A couple of conspiracy nuts say it makes your fingers fall off one by one, but the government says that’s ridiculous … However, government employees are all observed drinking bottled water exclusively, and if anyone suggests that government employees might also want to take the completely innocuous drug, they freak out … If by chance you manage to slip a little bit of tap water into a government employee’s drink, and he finds out about it, he runs around shrieking like a banshee and occasionally yelling “AAAAAAH! MY FINGERS! MY PRECIOUS FINGERS!”. At some point you might start to wonder whether the government was being entirely honest with you.”
What is it, exactly, that makes AI-generated text so poisonous to AIs but totally harmless to humans? What is mode/model collapse, and why can it only happen to AIs with too much AI text in their training data and not to, say, human students with too much AI text in their textbooks? The people who know the most about this phenomenon seem much more careful about contamination than they are encouraging us to be.
Because this isn't the case, training AI on its own output is more akin to what you get from pointing a camera at a TV showing its own output. Its a feedback loop that causes noise to blow up out of proportion and leaves nothing meaningful behind but a self-recursive loop. This is "what makes ai generated text poisonous to ais".
I don't think anyone is saying it's poisonous here? The people were hired to do a job and they didn't do it. Feels like you're being disingenuous, if there's one thing i know about AI employees, it's that they use LLMs, like, all the time.
Are you having trouble following the metaphor? In it, I would be the conspiracy theorist saying it’s poisonous, and OpenAI would be the government saying it’s harmless but it’s also a fireable offense to feed it to us and we’ve hired a second set of contractors to watch for any violation of this rule.
(I’m not trying to be disingenuous, though I am trying to express a niche viewpoint. Hopefully, my willingness to take the metaphorical role of conspiracy theorist is understood as epistemic humility.)
Nope, not having trouble following it, but the metaphor leaves out an important link between AI output and the AI itself. The question is, did the AI gain anything from this training? And the answer is, it did not, since the training used it's own answer with no other input. There's nothing in the water metaphor that draws this line.
Maybe a better metaphor is something involving drinking your own piss, but I don't feel the need to flesh that one out
So you’re saying LLMs are feeding us their piss instead of water
Well dang. That’s a problem ain’t it.
GPT-5 came and went, and we’re still here adding decimals to the model numbers hoping this fundamental fuckup will go away
Feels like everyone, including you and the guy you’re arguing with, and the researchers at openAI, knows this is a problem. Is it laziness? Lack of creativity? Are we seriously all out of ideas other than scaling compute?
When are we planning on figuring this one out boys. Who’s actually working on this today
Religions are an example of a system feeding back into itself and going off the rails. This is not an AI problem, this is the problem of any evolving system.
In humans this problem is solved by dying. If you get too stoooopid, well you get culled by your own stupidity. Luckily we run in a massively parallel fashion and those that aren't fatally dumb carry on.
This is also why human civilization fundamentally changed (not humans, our civilization) after wide adoption of the scientific method. Humanities growth in relation to our potential intelligence level was horrifically slow. It's really easy to say "hur hur, machine dumb" when we could have had rockets 10,000 years ago if we weren't dumb ourselves.
I don't believe we are anywhere close to AGI until I see 99.95% uptime at the frontier AI lab. Now they are undercounting. I hit 50x even when they claim they are up.
We now have alien intelligence that is very different from human intelligence.
Yeah, real Jev got really weird, no benchmarking clause. Their Terms of Use (1(v)) and MCA (2.3(f)) both prohibit users from publishing "benchmarks or performance information about the Services". No major AI has it; we are back to Oracle-style legal.
Though Jev is original, it looks highly replicable.
Not only is it replicable as you say, things like it already exist(ed).
The important bit of course is in the actual implementation: a) models fine tuned to produce good results for these types of questions and b) runtimes optimized to do this quickly and at scale
There's no benchmarking because it's not very intelligent at all. Right now everybody's being hype-shotted into believing you can use it for intelligent decisions.
> You have to evaluate every situation you want to use this in, one at a time, against an answer key you trust, and decide what a wrong call costs you there.
Lmao, imagine a time when all of the talking heads are yapping about AGI and you come up with crap that goes the opposite direction and you call it progress... bold.
and frankly for many of the kind of thing people probably want to use this for... you would want to run locally anyways.
why even bother with a network hop? build a specialized engine which does the prefill->measure cycle on local GPU/TPU/NPU with a model fine tuned for your application (e.g. gaming NPCs, autonomous driving, agricultural intelligence, drone.. target... selection, whatever)
the nice thing is that if you're skipping decode you're not as memory bandwidth bound.
For subscriptions, it is easier to collect the JSONL files from ~/.claude/projects/ and similar directories. They are better organized (e.g., subagents) than what the proxy sees.
However, the best value comes from collecting agent sessions across the whole organization. You'll need to scrub credentials and handle security.
reply