I feel it premature on the data to offer any at all. Also inappropriate for me to explain because I don't want the role, nor to bias any. I am content with the mystery and will see what shows up. Re this latest "drop" - I am in the absorb and observe phase, analysis is only passive background, if at all, I think.
I'm grateful for the entertainment and the sense of "gov't doing something people want/revealing something they lied about" tho. Restores confidence in the big system. I'm really curious to see what comes next :)
Agreed! And so am I, curious that is.
Also hope some update about the
deceased scientists are made available.
This president is doing a bit more to
disclose as compared to previous presidents.
Like him or not, this Prez's actively making the
effort to keep his campaign promises.
Or more likely, using this as a distraction from failing military operations that were claimed to have been "won" repeatedly for 2 months, continued raising energy prices while campaigning he would lower them, and the Epstein files. But sure, he's being altruistic on this campaign promise.
The only reasons I can think of why your comment would have gotten downvoted is for ideological reasons, e.g. people dislike the president so they downvoted you for saying something even slightly positive about him.
Since HN is not supposed to be used for ideological battle, that seems unfair. So have a counterbalancing upvote.
Another reason I can think of is simple disagreement about facts (or, relatedly, disliking the lack of sources/evidence in the comment).
Like it or not, downvoting for mere disagreement is allowed here[0]. I personally think that any such downvotes should at least be accompanied by a reply, but I haven't been able to find official guidance about that.
> Mojo lang seems to be targeting, but I rarely hear about it here
Momentum over at Mojo lang seems very very slow.
According to their roadmap, they're still busy on Phase 1 ("High performance CPU + GPU coding"), and haven't touched Phase 2 ("Systems application programming") and Phase 3 ("Dynamic object-oriented programming").
They've got a lot of work yet to do to be a general purpose language, but for GPU programming they have already demonstrated that they can outperform CUDA on Nvidia GPUs.
They have. Even during the congressional hearings on the subject they were talking about and referencing many already fully debunked UAP sighting footage
Except some of those would be necessarily suppressed because "it's the X-57" might be the sort of thing you don't want to release a picture of (nor say, F-22 doing some manoeuver we don't acknowledge it's capable of - in NATO exercises F-22 pilots are instructed to limit their flying to keep some of the plane's capabilities secret).
Um, no. The hellfire fired at a “UAP”. A psyop to cajole the senate and public.
As for US firing missiles at children, that Tomahawk hitting the all girls school had a strike package on record which would detail its intended target.
No capitalists just provide money, something other entities can as well. Often better too.
Capitalists are completely useless when they have no workers, so I don't understand your points outside of "wow capitalists require a lot of workers to exist."
Hence the rush towards LLM systems, the dream of perpetual labor machine is too enticing.
There is also no risks for capitalists, do we live on the same planet where the stated US economic policy isn't to socialize the risks and privatize the gains?
The risk is absolutely real, and varies immensely, as does its significance.
Consider the risks of VC backed initiatives, which far more often than not, return less than market salary to entrepreneurs, and less than the S&P 500 to capitalists.
For a shot at the jackpot, entrepreneurs are risking substandard salaries, and capitalists substandard returns.
You could argue that the capitalist’s risk is more significant than the entrepreneur’s. Even in failure, a VC initiative can afford the entrepreneur greater networking and professional experience than other roles, which increases their future earning potential and offsets their risk of substandard salary.
Hard to say the same for the capitalist, who is also, of course, risking a far greater amount of currency than anyone else.
But a risk’s significance is not determined by the amount wagered; it is determined by the consequences of losing the wager. As well as the consequences of participation, or lack thereof.
Median American lifetime earnings are somewhere between one and two million dollars; let’s say an entire life costs two million. A capitalist capable of investing a billion dollars could risk an entire lifetime’s money on a venture every other month, for eighty years, cradle to grave, and if they suffered complete losses every time, they’d still die with enough money for 1600 years of life in a wealthy nation.
The sum risked is immense. But the consequences of losing it are null.
It is, of course, more nuanced than that. Many businesses are funded by people with far less than a billion dollars, and many of them fail. There's also 3,000 billionaires, and an overwhelming majority of human lives that cost far less than American's.
It appears that you are saying that because someone is an Afrikaner, they must be a member of the apartheid regime or a proponent thereof.
If you are not saying this, then it's unclear how this is related to your previous comment.
You could write a comment that makes sense by saying "Afrikaners usually believed in weird corporal punishments because that was normal in their culture" or something and that would be perfectly acceptable.
Or perhaps, you have some specific knowledge that this guy was actually a proponent of apartheid, which you should share.
I’m sorry, calling Dutch colonists colonisers is despicable? Well, I suppose not just Dutch colonists, they did have their population bolstered by a lot of Austrians and Germans escaping war crime prosecution in the 40’s.
Anyway. In the early 90’s, in the U.K.? They were coming over for one reason only. The Afrikaner masters were always racist, always fans of collective punishment and bizarre corporal punishments.
I'm sure that person must've been a pretty bad one. But to tie Dutch colonialism, apartheid and WW2 war criminals (centuries later by the way) together this way to excuse these discriminatory remarks is pretty daft. Needless to say, not everyone was/is like that.
I will just say you lack basic knowledge of history of Afrikaners and South Africa in general and that, coupled with your prejudice on display, is a pretty ugly sight.
Some Afrikaners resent British people and Anglophone South Africans, and this dates back to the Boer Wars and beyond. The British interned large numbers of Afrikaners and some of them died in their camps. They marginalised their language, and tried to replace it with English in administration (much the same as with the Québecois etc). The Afrikaners remembered all this, and the insecurity it gave them was partly what led to apartheid and attempts to reinstate Afrikaans as the main national language.
We tended to hear a lot about black-white relations in South Africa, and even fighting between different black African groups... But much less so about the split among whites. I'm told by white South African English speakers that certain Afrikaans speakers were very resentful of them. Some of them didn't like the rugby and cricket boycotts of the 1970s and 1980s either.
It is perfectly possible that some of what you experienced from that teacher came from all this.
I do not agree with this statement though "They were coming over for one reason only." Many South Africans came to the UK for economic reasons, or cultural ties much like Aussie and Kiwis. I had a white South African drama teacher at school and while I could criticise many of my other teachers, I always found him to be pretty easy going. Except in one area. Some of the children used to make fun of his accent and he didn't like that, which I can understand. He came over years before apartheid was dismantled by the way, but never gave any indication of supporting it.
As long as you didn’t sell, and in fact bought more on the way down, you did well. Of course, not everyone’s time horizon works the timing (you might need the money and so sell at a low point), but generally, being in the market pays off.
It kind of depends what we mean. If you're conservatively in the market, invested in the aggregate economy, diversified, and what not, yes, but if you're taking bets on a smaller number of companies you can just lose your money full on. Not every single company recovers from a recession.
That's why if you are a business, the risk of a recession is a real threat. Someone will recapture your market once the recession is over, but will you?
That also means people will lose their jobs, price of goods will rise, the pressure to need to dip into one's savings will increase, forcing many people into cashing out at the worse possible time. If you are someone with that risk, as an individual, a recession is a real threat as well, and you might want to reduce your market exposure beforehand.
reply