Let's say you have a $SOCIETAL_TABOO streak and let it out via a soundcloud account that isn't identifiable as you without your email.
Now it is.
Now I can blackmail you or haunt you.
(I'm sure there's other examples, tl;dr people are deanonymized, there are uncountable reasons why people choose anonymity)
> The data in the leak (other than follower count, etc) was already available for purchase from Zoominfo, 8sense, or a variety of other data brokers or other legal marketplaces for PII.
You are 100% correct based on article. Not good that you're gray, and your parent of "who cares it was already available and scraped" is the top comment.
Kinda sad to see a "Recommended Actions", with only sponsors, with ad copy that would be understood by HN readers but not our non-technical friends. (i.e. a simple "Nothing. No passwords have been leaked yet, only metadata" in this case)
I'm confused about what are you asking (404 CAFFEINE_MISSING), and it helped me to reframe in terms of what the parent and grandparent write.
My reframe was, "If you're a Dem, don't you think Brockman should donate $25M to Trump, because I'm told I have to vote Dem if I don't like GOP, because Dems are the lesser evil, thus, Dems believe it is okay to support evil if it is in your self-interest?"
Assuming that, then turning back to theory, "Lesser evil" is a constraint on imperfect choices, not a moral voucher that turns any tactic into virtue. If you can justify writing a $25M check to someone you think is dangerous because it helps your side, then your issue was never "good vs. bad" - it was "my team wins," and you’re just shopping for a cleaner-sounding label.
Interesting reaction to that story, I'm fascinated: why do you think it's fake?
(my guess: Soviet-style repression differences b/t USSR and satellites; reads as fake to you because non-USSR was more lax, i.e. you'll be fine speaking honestly in private, just not in public)
You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why.
I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening.
Yes.
Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.
> Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack.
> The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders. “For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
It seems extremely relevant. Your argument suggests the president need only appoint a subordinate who will themselves give the desired illegal order without the president's public command. In the unlikely event the subordinate is called to account, the president can simply pardon them.
This is certainly not a hypothetical "parade of horribles", since Trump has already pardoned military officers convicted of war crimes.[1]
War crimes sounds scary as a whole mess of badness, but which one is kind of material. Eg Obama's drone strikes and CIA torture likely count as war crimes, though no court has actually tried him for them, so it's hard to get worked up about Navy Seals (whos job it is to go into war zones and do war-type things) having generically having committed war crimes. Did they rape women and babies, or did they shoot the wrong person in the dark of night who it turns out wasn't actually a threat.
> Gallagher was the subject of a number of reports from fellow SEAL team members, stating that his actions were not in keeping with the rules of war, but these reports were dismissed by the SEAL command structure.
> Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed elderly man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls.
Murdered a prisoner, and was shitty enough his fellow SEALs were uncomfortable enough to complain. Pardoned eventually, by Trump.
I've been in the tech industry for 45 years. Layoffs happen regularly. Well, not regularly, what it is is a chaotic system. There will be good times and bad times. The best way to deal with it is to immediately save, at a minimum, 6 months of runway. Preferably a year.
When you're in between jobs, work on:
1. improving your job skills
2. network
3. build your resume by contributing to open source
I don't intend to be dismissive by sharing a bunch, I ate a bunch of downvotes so I should share something. But, there's no singular, like, Wikipedia article for "tech layoffs spiked significantly in 2022 and have stayed elevated" - so this is a mix of informal and formal and academic and business news that treats that knowledge as implicit while discussing it.
(I am deeply curious what valhalla you are at that skipped this so much that it was a foreign idea! N or A, it must be one of those two)
Sure, it waxes and wanes. 2022-2023 were probably above average layoff years, while 2020-2021 before that were probably below average years. I think layoffs have fallen since 2023 rather than staying elevated, but I haven't attempted to quantify that.
Q: You know what investors and shareholders love more than having 1 billion dollars?
A: Having 2 billion dollars. And with all the money being burned on AI, having 2 billion is better than 1.
If mass layoffs causes the stock to go from 1 to 2, then guess what's gonna happen?
In the ZIRP era companies would hire needlessly to get the stock up because that signaled growth to investors. Now it's the opposite, you trim because that gets the stock up, not because they conspire together to lay off people.
Why is the highest and best use of a company's free cash paying the least productive employees, instead of returning cash to shareholders or investing it in something more productive?
The really terrifying thing is the next logical step from the instinctual reaction. Eschew miracle, eschew the cognitive bias of feeling warm and fuzzy for the guy who gives you it for free.
Socratic version: how can the Chinese companies afford to make them and give them out for free? Cui bono?
n.b. it's not because they're making money on the API, ex. open openrouter and see how Moonshot or DeepSeek's 1st party inference speed compares to literally any other provider. Note also that this disadvantage can't just be limited to LLMs, due to GPU export rules.
reply