Let me choose. This common point seems more like a rationalization for the default behavior of hyperscalers. AWS isn't avoiding prepaid due to concern about my site's virality, just that prepaid = less money.

>Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong.

Hilarious joke, Mr. Fukuyama. You have masked goons running around, detaining and even killing people without probable cause. If the results of the 2026 midterms are not to the liking of the current POTUS, it isn't unthinkable that he would try to overturn them, even by force. Would you be hand-wringing on HN about how violence is always bad, then?

But I digress. Firebombing Sam Altman is very bad; there is a multitude of good points against it, from the moral to the pragmatic. "Violence is fundamentally evil" is just a lazy and evidently false argument that does you a disservice.

> Hilarious joke, Mr. Fukuyama. You have masked goons running around, detaining and even killing people without probable cause. If the results of the 2026 midterms are not to the liking of the current POTUS, it isn't unthinkable that he would try to overturn them, even by force. Would you be hand-wringing on HN about how violence is always bad, then?

Also the official opposition is actually not really interested in representing many discontented people. It sticks to loser issues at are alienating to many except activist base (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/opinion/democrats-senate-...), and seems totally fine with not being competitive in many elections. And it continues to be that way in the dire political environment you describe.

Their point is that empathy is a (very useful) emotional response. It doesn't give you a correct model of the other persons mind.

Why can’t it be both? We have dedicated neural circuitry to mirroring others’ emotions, and pheromones that directly signal emotions between individuals.

It just isn't both. Emotional intelligence isn't mirroring others' emotions or smelling their pheromones, it is using the mind to actually understand rationally what is going through someone else's. It's how you can know what an octopus is thinking despite not having the neural circuitry to mirror its emotions or pick up its chemical signatures.

> It's how you can know what an octopus is thinking

You mean, it’s how you can assign anthropomorphised assumptions to the octopus. There’s a world difference between having semi reliable predictive power and actually knowing something.

Yes, exactly how you assign those assumptions to humans despite having no way of actually knowing that they have rich internal lives comparable to your own. It is the ability to simulate a mind foreign to your own and anticipate how it would respond to circumstances.

We don’t have to assume with humans. We can introspect our emotions and discuss them with others. Though we can’t be precise, we can understand and distinguish concepts like shame vs humiliation which appear to be (effectively) universal to the human experience.

That is a world apart from seeing an octopus react to something and assuming that anything resembling emotions are involved at all.

> We can introspect our emotions and discuss them with others.

And theory of mind is how you can know what someone is thinking without them telling you.

Because we have prior knowledge to rely on.

As opposed to built in neural pathways or pheromone responses.

I think your description would be perfect in describing a psychopath - i.e. someone who can rationalize and think about other beings logically, without actually being able to subconsciously empathize.

Not all people like that at all. Some people really do feel emotions of others before being able to rationalize it.

> Some people really do feel emotions of others before being able to rationalize it.

Yeah, they are called empaths. That's empathy. Rationalizing is another process, which can be done faster with high emotional/social intelligence.

> psychopath - i.e. someone who can rationalize and think about other beings logically, without actually being able to subconsciously empathize.

Exactly. Low on empathy but high on intelligence - psychopath. Low on emotional intelligence but high on empathy - empath. Low on both - unfeeling idiot. High on both - a warm kind person.

No, a psychopath is someone who can't empathize. Theory of mind has nothing to do with empathy. The overwhelming majority of people are capable of both, but they are two distinct skills.

Someone could be extremely proficient in disciplines that are associated with 'raw' intelligence, and yet utterly fail at theory of mind. Anyone that has been in a college campus probably has seen examples e.g, Classmate might click instantly with real analysis but will routinely perplexed about why their girlfriend is mad, or why they are seen as abrasive.

To be clear, in my experience it wasn't even a case of being on the spectrum or other neurodivergence. They simply had a bad model of other people's thoughts and emotions. Of course this isn't DnD, I've met people a order of magnitude smarter than me in the usual academics and with a deeper understanding of people.

You might not like the terminology, but it's a real thing and can be independent from what we usually call intelligence.

Chilean here, totally understandable by paying attention. I didn't even know Brazil was under dictatorship in '77. The whole point of the secret agent framing is that it works better if you don't know much about the setting.

Are you sure your opinion isn't being colored by culture war bullshit?

>One of the boring and meaningless movies I ever seen. No arc, no coherent story, (almost) no humor, no development, no intrigue, nothing.

I understand finding the movie too long or difficult to follow without historical context, or even just not feeling it. But if this is your conclusion after the last scene, you either didn't watch it or are being contrarian.

Yes I didn’t finish it. If only few scenes are worth watching it’s not a movie it’s a bunch of clips

Ah, the classic paragraph of contrarian dismissal, followed by, "Well, actually, I didn't finish it, but..." - what short-form video content has done to our minds.

Not really familiar with Brazil (although I am with military juntas) but I think the spy misdirect helps a lot. If you are slightly observant you will get the gist by the middle of the movie. The spy thriller aspect avoids making the uncertainty frustrating until then.

Obviously by judging the comments it doesn't work for everyone, specially the leg scene confusing a lot people, which I didn't expect tbh. Gay bashing cops isn't a dictatorship only thing.

Yeah yeah, it isn't arthouse but, is it a less of a thinker than Pulp Fiction? I have the suspicion that GP would find IMDb Top movies agreeable and they aren't all deeply introspective films, which isn't a bad thing.

I think it's just survivorship bias, we don't remember the pre-2000 schlock because it's schlock. The two real "things used to be better before" situations IMO are:

- The loss of DVD revenue killed mid-budget productions, in the US the options are mostly indie darling or outrageous budget blockbuster.

- Big productions look flatter than before due to VFX crew exploitation. The VFX must be reworked 100 times with minimal time because planning is for suckers. No complex lighting for you and only crunch for the non-unionized Korean.

Well... they weren't immigrants, they were annexed. Why should they speak English?

They didn't have to. But they also shouldn't expect the annexing government or populace to accommodate them.

Their country lost the war, lost the territory, and those that stayed and chose to take American citizenship should've learned English, the (de facto) language of the country they chose to join.

People still speak German in South Tyrol even though it's part of Italy since 1919.