This isn't a place for hosting your blog posts. Instead why not put this on an external site, expand on it a bit, and submit a link? Thats how HN works.
We live in a world where people are having relationships with, taking drug advice from, and even getting married to AI chat bots
Asking one to tell you a story is table stakes.
One of my first experiments with ChatGPT was prompting it to tell me a story that was Hogwarts but the houses were mob families from the Sopranos and the spells were slang like gabagool. It was pretty mind blowing at the time how detailed it was with such a basic prompt.
Pretty obvious it was trained in copyrighted material and just vaguely recycling it back.
I'm not panicking, but I am very concerned about the imminent capabilities of the technology and our apparent inability to organise ourselves to shape its trajectory. It seems like a classic "wicked" coordination problem and, like climate change, I suspect we'll leave it too late to avoid the serious consequences. No-one will slow down out of fear that the others won't.
As for the technology itself - it isn't like anything we've ever seen before and, when embedded in human societies, it won't behave in a way that has any comparable precedent. I worry that basically nobody of good will who has any political power understands it.
> Let's say we got rid of Trump, but then who is going to be the alternative in your opinion?
You seem to be using the "they're all as bad as eachother" argument. But previous US presidents haven't used their office for enrichment on this scale - and so it seems likely that there are alternative potential presidents who would behave with integrity and dignity.
But isn't that the case? They are all as bad and corrupt in their own merit. Coming back to the original question, do you have anyone concrete in mind that can be the alternative to Trump?
Has any other president fired the the FBI directory because he wouldn't swear personal loyalty to him (like Trump did Comey)? Did any other president try to do a (self) coup?
You may disagree with their policies (and even values), but would have anyone else tried to do an end-run around the Constitution? Pence went through with the 2020 election certification even when people were literally calling him for to be lynched.
The Boeing wag given to the US government. Not to Trump personally. It's stated explicitly in the wikipedia link you provided.
> Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.
So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.
Further, wikipedia is not a credible source link in-case you didn't know. Anyone can edit the pages there and somethings are verified and sometime once could even make up facts and link to fake articles.
> Had you ever been to a college and used wikipedia link as a source reference when writing a paper you would've known.
Some of us went to school before Wikipedia was invented. And even if Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source directly, going to the references cited in a Wikipedia article and citing those I'm guess is another matter.
>The Boeing wag given to the US government. Not to Trump personally. It's stated explicitly in the wikipedia link you provided.
>The aircraft is slated to be transferred to Trump's presidential library foundation shortly before the end of his second term, though critics argue that such a transfer may be unconstitutional.
So it will go to Trump, but only after getting the government to pay billions to upgrade it.
The Boeing wag given to the US government. Not to Trump personally. It's stated explicitly in the wikipedia link you provided.
Also stated in a news report[1] linked by Wikipedia,
In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar -- a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.
The vast majority of examples in the link are either presidents firing members of their own staff, or firing people for not doing their job well. A large number of Trump firings were because people were doing their job.
>> Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.
> So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.
What have those people done, particularly Harris, Clinton, Kasich, and Pence that would qualify them for the "crook" title? And have any of them done such things within an order of magnitude or two of the rate and intensity that Trump has done them?
> Examples where former presidents firing people for lack of loyalty, here is a list of them
* Nixon is not an example that helps your case
* Truman fired MacArther for insubordination (and nearing starting WW3): generals do not get to set policy
* essential workers are not allowed to strike: police and firefighters would be fired too
* Ford (Nixon's VP in case you didn't know) isn't helping your case either
* firing a personal chief of staff different compared to a Senate-appointed position, especially one that's supposed to be work independent (like the AG is also supposed to be)
* again, a general that does not get to set policy over a President
Comey was fired for no other reason that he would not cow-tow to Trump. Compare-contrast with another FBI Director's firing:
> However, Sessions’ ethics came into question just before then-President-elect Bill Clinton was inaugurated. Sessions was accused of improperly using an FBI plane to visit his family as well as reportedly installing a security fence around his home on the government’s dime. A Justice Department report found that Sessions had avoided paying taxes on the use of his FBI limousine for his daily commute.
> So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.
Yes, all those are crooks…
> Further, wikipedia is not a credible source link in-case you didn't know. Anyone can edit the pages there and somethings are verified and sometime once could even make up facts and link to fake articles.
Feel free to click "edit" yourself to remove the made "up facts and link to fake articles."
Same - 72 million if it gets you a government favourable to your interests is a cheap price for the kind of resources those famously altruistic billionaires can throw around.
In the same week as the undercover documentary where one of the senior Reform figures said on hidden camera "but if gets you a friend in No 10, worth it" while discussing how to circumvent the law on foreign donations.
If we don't crack down hard on this shit now we'll pay for it later.
> If we don't crack down hard on this shit now we'll pay for it later.
The USA provided an excellent example for us to learn from. But I do wonder if this cancer of corruption has already spread worldwide and is too powerful to stop the well financed populism through which it spreads.
Its 13:15 UTC and 21 of the 30 submissions on the HN home page are not AI related. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with AI-related submissions, but I'm not sure its a flood.
If it is on the homepage then is it not algorithmically what the community wants? Have you tried the https://news.ycombinator.com/newest link? I find that I prefer it over the homepage and have does so for years.
I think your parent commenter's point is that the satellites are used to detect launches. No satellites == no early warning == temptation to launch preemptively.
It's possible. IIRC, the large powers have enough mobile nuclear capabilities that even if they suffered from a first strike, they could still retaliate and cripple the striking country, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
It's pretty much what Iran is doing to the US now with their supply of mobile ballistic missiles and drones, but on a global scale with subs/etc... added to the mix.
Github used to be built on mysql / redis / ruby on rails / C / shell, running on dedicated hardware. Microsoft left it like that after they acquired the company.
Eventually, though, they decided to migrate the whole thing to Azure. And they were far enough through that to be basically committed... when AI coding started hitting them with much higher workloads.
I personally think the reliability problems are more to do with the reliability of the Azure migration. But both factors are likely relevant.
They didn't leave the architecture alone, right? They shoved React in and created a weird SSR + React frankenstein that is objectively worse in many ways.
Ruby can't render React code. JavaScript can. With GitHub it seems that they sometimes can do SSR for the React bits, but that must mean that they're invoking a JavaScript interpreter within the Ruby process. Which means they have the overhead of two runtimes and the jank that comes with the IPC between the two.
It's just pointless hacks on hacks. GitHub didn't need React on the frontend and any potential resource savings of client side rendering were lost when they realized they need to do SSR on that stuff too.
I've encountered so much frontend jank as they expanded that portion of the stack whereas it was always excellent when it was just Ruby SSR and minimal JS on the frontend.
Wish they spent some AI tokens on that abomination to fix at least some of the countless issues it has, because their human engineers definitely won’t.
Well, maybe not completely down but the amount of navigation issues, screen flickers and unhydrated stylesheets I have everyday is not something I'd expect from such a product.
After their infamous "Fail Whale" outages, Twitter replaced its Ruby on Rails / MySQL stack with modern (at the time) technologies: Scala (functional language running on the JVM) / Finagle (RPC) / Thrift (framework) / Kafka (message queues) and this made Twitter stable under the load of several hundred million users.
Ruby is single-threaded, slow with poor GC and memory leaks. As Twitter's Alex Payne said publicly in 2008: "there shouldn't be doubt in anybody's mind that Ruby itself is slow" and that scaling Rails meant "just throw more instances at it"
tell that to Shopify that handles 8.15 million requests per second and processes 5.1 million per minute in sales during Black Friday. You scale your architecture, not your programming language.
Current Rails and Co are miles away from where they used to be then, but even then my feeling was that maybe it was the skill/culture/dev ops at Twitter that was at least partly responsible for the fail whale. But I don’t have any insight as to what was actually going on inside before and after that transition.
It’s 2026 and we’re still benchmarking Ruby using Twitter’s 2008 architecture. It was less about a language choice and more about years of architectural redesign. I thought we were past this by now.
Musk would be so proud. Do you by any chance drive a cybertruck too?
Seriously, don't do this while you're driving. Or even while your car is driving. Its dangerous to be distracted in that situation.
reply