Companies with high morality, do those even exist? Which one of the big tech companies do you expect to work towards benefiting humanity instead of focusing on turning a profit by any means?
I know plenty of small tech companies that really do care about their customers top to bottom.
There's no magic way for anyone to validate that claim because if I named them, nobody would know, there's no way to really know these things anyway. But they exist.
That's the point of having a government for the people by the people.
But when you let billionaires take over that too then the people have zero protections from exploitation.
If they cared they would invest in America paying more taxes, ensuring citizens are educated and capable of leading their companies versus offshoring and even competing with them.
They don't want that and prefer their monopolies instead.
And as an aside, let's deep dive into the kind of person Larry Ellison is. Guy literally bought out an island where he rules as almost-a-king. You can't do shit in Lanai without Larry's say-so, and if you move out of Lanai or you quit/lose your job working for Larry, your only option is to sell your home back to him.
Why leave off “or incomplete” when people can see it directly above what you misquoted? But sure, plenty of examples here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38779199. You can search on Google for Veritasium wrong (or misleading, incomplete, etc.) if you’d like more examples.
The YouTube video in your link refers to a single Veritasium video regarding their coverage of Waymo autonomous driving. But I feel the entire video is invalidated by the fact that Veritasium clearly mentions that their video is sponsored by Waymo. As a viewer I already know that there will be bias because of this declaration. Veritasium isn’t hiding it, so what’s the issue?
On HN I’d hope to read insightful comments instead of ones making strong statements without justification and asking others to Google for examples. If you’re too lazy to type out them out it’s probably better not to post at all; this is not Reddit.
The video was just one example from the linked thread, which was why I linked to the thread not the video. I don't see the benefit of copying all that text here when it's already there, I'm sorry to have to say. You're certainly welcome to believe that there's a good excuse every time he's incomplete or wrong, although I personally don't. I think it's because it's first and foremost entertainment content.
How am I misquoting you? If you meant to say that Veritasium is frequently incomplete then just say that. No need to add the frequently wrong part at all. You’re implying something much stronger than what you intended; just to sway people’s opinion. But I didn’t need to write this because as you say people can just read your bias.
You've misquoted by turning "Veritasium seems to be frequently wrong or at least incomplete" into "Veritasium seems to be frequently wrong" in order to lecture me that saying only that he's frequently wrong is overstating things, and that I should have said incomplete. Which I did - in the non-misquoted version. But of course, you don't need my participation to have debates with imaginary versions of people in your head so I'll leave you to it.
Because everyone who likes how Apple has made it easy for users to manage their subscriptions and enjoy the overall user friendliness of their products we are thus cultists who just blindly do as we’re told. Maybe some people don’t agree with your views; that doesn’t make them cult followers for having a different opinion.
Edit: fuck I just got trolled. According to jillyboel profile we are all just fascists. And dang is preventing him from spamming his trolls on HN.
There's no law against you overpaying Apple when you could get more value by going off app. If you want to spend $14 for something that's $10 on Epics website, your welcome to do so. Epic will still get their $10, and you can gift Apple $4 for making it easy to cancel your future subscriptions.
Having a carbon tax seems to be the most fair way to combat climate change; unfortunately in practice it is political suicide. Australia had a carbon tax in 2011 and was quickly repealed in 2014. Likewise Canada also implemented such a tax in 2019 and was repealed this year prior to their election. People like to say that they want to help the environment, but when it comes time to vote they vote against such policies.
The Australian implementation had a lot of problems. Instead of being (something reasonably loophole free like) a tax levied on fossil fuel consumption it was a scheme that applied to the 500 largest emitters. These emitters then (crucially) estimated their own emissions minus offsets and paid tax on that.
The issue with this is that it creates a whole parallel (and largely fake) carbon accounting world. Fake estimates, fake offsets, a complex web of compensating subsidies - but real public money.
The field of carbon taxes is tricky because we can imagine simple schemes which handle a few scenarios in a fair way (ok, fuel! we know how to tax that) but once you start thinking about agriculture or construction you quickly get into complex estimation. You then end up with armies of carbon accountants who spend all day looking for loopholes and rorts.
Canada ultimately repealed the carbon tax because it was used as a political cudgel against the Liberal party that enacted it by the Conservative opposition in a sustained fashion for several years.
Which is dismaying because carbon taxes are a conservative solution to this problem and IIRC the first political entities to suggest the implementation of them in Canada were Conservative.
At the end of the day you have a nontrivial amount of the population, and many in positions of power who just outright deny environmental concerns and climate change as an existential threat.
They aren't going to approach this problem in good faith and it isn't obvious what the solution to their nefarious influence on policy should be.
1. The textbook implementation involves 3 parts: tax, rebate and tariff. Canada only did the first 2. They were in talks with Germany/EU to create a carbon tariff zone, but that never happens. Without the tariff the carbon tax is massively unfair to local producers.
2. The rebates were almost invisible. If they would have been cheques in the mail it would have had much more impact psychologically.
But I agree, the main problem was denialism and its use as a political cudgel. It should be hard to argue that carbon tax is stealing money when all of it is given back, but they successfully did that.
Broadly agreed. IMO the Canadian carbon tax had a marketing problem. It should have been called a Carbon Dividend. First, it would have replaced the negative connotation of the word "tax" with the positive connotation of the word "dividend -- and it would have been more accurate to how the program actually worked.
Second, and probably more important: the rebates showed up in your bank account with a description that didn't make the source obvious enough for laypeople. Had people seen monthly "CARBON DIVIDEND" credits in their bank accounts, they would have noticed.
It was never called carbon tax, but carbon pricing. It being knows as carbon tax was the result of of opposition efforts. The same efforts and results would have happened had it been called dividend or anything else.
What makes "rebate" terrible but "dividend" good? They accomplish the same thing in my mind. In fact I think calling it a "dividend" would be a pretty unconventional and contrived usage of that word.
I agree with avoiding AI generated opinion pieces, but in this case was this article really “LLM junk”? At the bottom it attributes:
> This article was written in collaboration with AI. The tool helped shape the words—but the questions, the direction, and the discomfort it carries are human.
If I take their disclaimer at face value it could mean that the author used AI to fix their grammar. Does this make their arguments invalid? If the author wanted to just post LLM junk then wouldn’t they omit the disclaimer altogether?
I think it’s important to attribute the use of AI when submitting an article, but I’d be less inclined to do so if readers would label my writing entirely as LLM generated. Maybe the only solution is to not use LLMs and just get gud at English.
> Citizens pay attention to the number of employees, and they get mad about it. You really don't want to be the one to cause citizens to angrily call elected officials if you're in an appointed government position.
This week, after witnessing the largest insider trading infraction in US history, many citizens barely noticed. I no longer believe citizens pay attention to news. They’re conditioned to feel outrage at whatever social media tells them to.
On the other hand, I don't think most citizens care deeply about most white-collar crimes unless they're directly impacted. If you don't own stocks, why care if the stock market crashes? Heck, it might even be fun to watch all those richies with spare money to invest turn suicidal en masse.
There's a reason why "but his 34 felonies" never had any sticking power to anyone who hasn't been part of the resistance since 2017.
I don’t think it has anything to do with whether it was a white collar crime or not. If it was the other team that committed the crime there would be endless outrage from his supporters whether or not they understood the crime.
Look at the email server debacle, did the supporters understand what the crime was? Then Signalgate occurred and it’s crickets in the news now. Freedom of speech now means freedom to spread misinformation.
Haha, those yokels getting a laugh from all those richies losing money in the stock market, but jokes on them when they’re funding the joke with their retirement funds. And those coming tax cuts, who will be benefiting the most from those? Haha, the joke keeps getting funnier…
I understand what the email server thing was about. I also understand what the signal thing was about. I don't think it's possible to compare the two. One involved a device/software "helpfully" adding a phone number to group chat because it "helpfully" added the phone number to a contact that was not that contact's phone number.
The other one was a private email server, set up on purpose.
> jokes on them when they’re funding the joke with their retirement funds
Many of these people don't have meaningful retirement savings to lose. Or they're young enough that time in the market will expect to recover in 30 years.
People on HN have too much to lose. Who is willing to put their personal wealth and livelihood at risk to protest? We are witnessing the fall of democracy and the middle class will stand aside and let it happen.
I like that Nintendo recognises that the mouse is a superior input device, but their vertical joycon implementation seems more like a gimmick than an actually useful device. Balancing and sliding a vertical joycon doesn’t seem like it would be particularly stable. I foresee an actual traditionally shaped mouse sold by Nintendo in the future.
reply