Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | RajT88's commentslogin

> This was the same before, if you had a novel idea and make a product out of it others follow.

You've almost captured the full picture of it.

If you have a great idea, it's not going to be self-evidently enough of a great idea until you've proved it can make money. That's the hard part which comes at great personal, professional and financial risk.

Algorithms are cheap. Sure, they could use your LLM history to figure out what you did. Or the LLM could just reason it out. It could save them some work, sure.

But again - the hard part is not cloning the product, it's stealing your customers. People don't seem to be focused on the hard parts.


Yeah, and the big guys can't steal your customers. What a crazy idea.

The point is - they're going to do that anyways if they want to. Owning the LLM platforms makes it marginally cheaper to do so.

It's not the risk it's being made out to be.


Absolutely. The fact that they know your app better than you do, and that they can revoke your ability to develop it at any moment, those are just details. Those things won't change the game at all.

Unless you're using their API (in which case there's always platform risk, same as before), this is not an issue. There are lots of half assed implementations of ideas by the big companies that smaller companies run circles around, Innovator's Dilemma was literally written about this.

In my opinion Christensen wasn't talking about outsourcing your entire development process to a competitor with much deeper pockets, giving them the ability to turn off your development at will [1], and then running rings around them. I'm sure you're familiar with his story about Dell and Asus. This is worse.

[1] Unless you're assuming that you maintain control over your technology while outsourcing most of the development thinking to a rented AI? Times have changed, and the API is not the only issue anymore.


What is the issue? Local models still exist and will continue to exist, and even if they don't, good old fashioned hand coding will never go away. The point is even AI companies are run by people and one company cannot make every product well, there are always gaps in the market that are exploitable.

I don't think the risk is that they copy your app.

The risk is that they make the category a built-in feature in something people already use. At that point, copying the product and taking the customers start to look like the same problem.


Yup, pre-cog Sherlocking. The mass keeps accreting towards the already too large players.

> But again - the hard part is not cloning the product, it's stealing your customers. People don't seem to be focused on the hard parts.

Big companies seem to be bad at innovating but really, really good at enterprise sales.


I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I do think that a big part of enterprise sales involves building a comprehensive solution that works well within the customer’s ecosystem. Start-ups usually tend to build point products, which have value, but are still missing functionality (even if that functionality is not scintillating) that customers really desire to easily deploy and maintain solutions. Also, customers do care about things like stability of their vendors and the level of available support.

I'm not saying it is always the case but does it not match your experience that big orgs like Microsoft are much better at navigating the enterprise sales process than a typical startup? Not to mention how many of those startups are just answering security questionnaires and other procurement gates with AI.

I definitely agree w/ you that big organizations are generally better able to navigate the enterprise sales process, but mainy trying to say that customers might choose to work with a bigger company's products for reasons that typically go way beyond that (e.g., better integrations, support resources, etc.).

I've seen big companies manage to duplicate startup-like culture with small teams internally. Weird things like directors handling builds and source control duties. 12 hour days, working weekends.

These teams said that per man-hour they brought more value to the company than any other team. (But you know, they all say that)


> But again - the hard part is not cloning the product, it's stealing your customers.

Yes. A Red Hat, a Microsoft -- these companies have processes, organizational structure, politics, friction, etc. They might like your products, but replicating them might not be easy for reasons that have nothing to do with how easy it is given the freedom to do it. Small shops with vision might well have a bright future, for a while, maybe.


Indeed, government regulation is decried mostly because of all the cases where it got polluted by special interests, instead of following the interests of general consumers.

This is how you end up turning a chunk of your food supply into fuel to subsidize crops which aren't all that good at being distilled into fuel in the first place...


This is mostly because Americans keep electing total morons.

I would actually suggest this is symptomatic of the real problem: money in politics.

Elected officials (and some appointed, like SCOTUS) keep changing laws and precedents to allow more and more money in politics. They can't quit all that dark money - without a lot of funding, you don't get elected. Usually the best funded candidate wins.

There was an anonymous oped from a congressman some years back which bemoaned the reality - that 60% of their time was dedicated to meeting with donors for reelection campaigns instead of working on real problems.


> that 60% of their time was dedicated to meeting with donors for reelection campaigns instead of working on real problems.

This is the same story told by Tom Morello, guitarist of Rage Against the Machine (at the end of the early life section): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Morello#Early_life

Key line: "He had to compromise his entire being every day."


Part of the reason money has such a big influence on elections is that first-past-the-post election system you have over there in the US. When voters have to make a binary choice between two participants, low-information campaigns like hit-pieces are able to make a big difference and are cheap to communicate en-masse. When voters have a actual choice between four parties on the left and four parties on the right, hit-pieces will only make a voter switch from, say, one left-wing party to another. So since the return-on-investment on political advertising is much lower, much less money will be spent on it and there will be less of it. And what will be there will be of higher quality.

If any of what you just said was true in practice, Australia would be a gleaming example of how democracies with strong civil society organisations can be run.

Instead, Australia is best described as pigs at the slops trough.

A nation that seems to only want to vote for leaders who have a public humiliation kink.


Yes yes yes. Dark money. Nepotism. Corrupt courts. Gerrymandering .... anything to deflect from the fact that so many voters still put thier mark beside the biggest idiot. And i mean that literally. American voters like tall people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_pres...


They're all problems and they all contribute to the reality of our government being unable to actually do anything beyond tax cuts.

* People elect morons because we have been slowly destroying our education system since the 50's and we can barely turn out anyone who can think worth a shit. That's by design, as local elections overwhelmingly swing Republican, and Republicans on balance gain from an ignorant electorate.

* Additionally, we are now bombarded with "information" from wake to sleep every single day, and beyond the actual problems which are already stressful enough, we also have a whole bunch of made up culture war nonsense that mainstream and alternative media loves to discuss, both to fill airtime and because researching and covering nonsense is far less work, less legally actionable, and garners more attention overall. Information overload affects people too and makes them more likely to choose easy/quick things.

* Dark money is also a HUGE issue because it permits capital to influence elections like never before. It's no coincidence all of this shit got turbocharged after Citizens United.

* Gerrymandering is also a huge, huge issue wherein Democrat votes are simply disregarded or packed into single districts, which helps local elections shift further right constantly.

* The courts are also hideously corrupt. The Supreme Court is utterly failing to reign in the Trump administration on everything short of wiping their asses with the constitution, and that's not shocking considering how many of them were appointed by Trump and confirmed by the inept Congress.

And then any time Democrats do manage to acquire something resembling power, they have so many fires to put out that they can barely get us back to an even keel before another "outsider" dumbass comes in and starts screwing it up again.


People aren’t electing “morons” out of ignorance. They are electing people that hate the same people they hate. You are blaming ignorance where it is active malice.

Electing people for the things they hate is ignorance for politics as a serious field.

Again you call it ignorance instead of malevolence.

How is electing Trump any different than George Wallace having a slogan of “Segregation Now! Segregation Tomorrow! Segregation Forever!”?

There was no ignorance. Everyone knows that the government has a “monopoly on [legalized] violence”. If they can elect people who will turn that violence against people they don’t like, they are doing it with full knowledge.


American government was actually perfectly able to "Do things" right up until 2008. Republicans and Democrats quite literally worked together in Congress in broad cliques that normally crossed party boundaries, and did this all the time. When Clinton's admin was trying to save money on the budget, the fights in Congress frequently crossed party lines and were outright bipartisan, about actual merits (claimed or real) of the programs they were cutting or vouching for. You had Republicans rightly blasting certain Democrats for saying stupid things about the SSC shoulder to shoulder with other democrats.

Then in 2008 Mitch McConnel said, literally to reporters, "I will make Obama a one term president" and declared their job was to not let the government do anything.

And just like that, it became Republican Party Doctrine that you do not cross the party line or else you get fired. This was absolutely supported and highly praised by their constituents! As Democrat politicians continued to work their assess off crossing the aisle, finding any way to keep the country functioning as half of the government declared strike (the irony).

But for some reason we aren't allowed to say this. Republicans directly say their plan and strategy and malice to the camera and we get punished for showing their voters exactly what they vote for.

Democrats are still trying to make deals, because half of them are literally just republicans with a (D), but if you ever ever ever ever cross the aisle as a Republican, even to fix a problem your base has spent decades screaming about, you get primaried.

Republican voters have done this. The republican party has chosen to do this. They own this.


Politics is an arm's race. This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but Democrats do all the same things Republicans do. Arguably they differ in how they do it, and how much. Democrats gerrymander, and as well traffic in conspiracy theories for example (the latter they do less than Republicans, but they still do it).

They aren’t even remotely close to being the same at this point.

When one party will violate every norm and law to the greatest extent that they can get away with it, it's pretty much impossible to compete with them. I want good things for people. I can't compete with fascists because they will cheat and lie and employ violence. My positive intent is almost impossible to out thwart their dirty deeds if they are willing to break laws / change laws and I won't.

It amazes me that so many people blame the politicians and not the people who elected them.

Blaming voters for being stupid is not widely accepted yet.

The voters aren’t stupid. They are actively malignant and cheer what the administration is doing.

Okay but what solution lies down that road?

That's the problem. People don't want to blame the voters because there's no solution. We are grasping for something that is possible to fix that isn't just "Somehow americans are especially bad at doing very basic things for no reason"


Well, I personally am making the “Ben Kenobi” choice. I’m hoping to leave the US and retire and die and make it the next generation’s problem.

I’ve done my part, I have voted for “progressive”/safety net policies and the US has gone in the opposite direction. This isn’t some shrill unthought out plan.

I’m actually in the country now I plan to retire to for six weeks and I’m coming back for a month in the summer, part of the ex-pat community and meeting people, my wife and I have been learning Spanish and I speak it okay and I know the processes for establishing residency here

I’m over dealing with the American people. As a minority, I find the entire attitude outside of the US refreshing even as the only Black couple in our expat group. For reference, my still living parents grew up in the segregated South.


The large citizenries that later (19th century) forced administrations into constitutions and participation in policy started out with state mandated education and a class consciousness that is based on being knowledged and sophisticated. You need to make the next generation as smart as possible as you can, optimally also on topics concerning the society and economics.

The late 19th century was also when “Separate but Equal” was enshrined as the law of the land by the Supreme Court and a few decades later there were Japanese internment camps…

Well we can’t recall the voters, so there is no point in addressing them. They are a problem because in the US there used to be an FCC rule that said “if you call yourself a news program, you must tell the truth,” and that was overridden by the Supreme Court during Reagan’s term.

No there was never a rule about “telling the truth” the rule was “equal time”. So if one party said “vaccines keep people from dying” and the other party said “vaccines would cause you to grow extra limbs” you had to allow them both on.

Second, it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The theory was that the airwaves belong to the public and the FCC has jurisdiction. It never applied to cable channels like FoxNews

Third, the current FCC is going after broadcast networks for not being fair under the rule


> The theory was that the airwaves belong to the public and the FCC has jurisdiction.

Now most things go over the shared network (InterNet) so that problem should have fixed it self, no?


Airwaves are limited resource - especially spectrum suitable for broadcast. Two companies can’t share the same broadcast spectrum.

The Internet is not a limited resource and not owned by the public and licensed to broadcasters. More than one company can lay cable.

Do you really want the government policing what can be said on the internet?


It does already. Section 230 in the US isn't an unlimited get out of jail free card. Other countries have varying amount of policing, with differing levels of success and corruption. Spain, the UK, and China all come to mind here.

Section 230 only has to do with defamation in this context not “misinformation”.

There's only one party and it's color is green. Donors know red or blue doesn't matter, so they give to both.

That's just an unreal characterization that plays into the hands of the "red" team. One side has put up presidents and congressional leadership that worked (mostly, I'm not saying they're perfect) within the traditional framework of the system. The other has put up a president who literally does not understand the meaning of the word "no," expects that everyone will let him do pretty much anything he wants, and a congress that agrees with him. Notably, that side was different in 2000, 1988, 1980, etc. -- not perfect by any stretch, but not this.

The difference matters.


Do you want another authoritarian, corrupt, cult of personality leader like Trump? Proclaiming "both sides" and ignoring nuance like you're doing is how no one gets held accountable for the real harms that are taking place. Please stop holding water for the MAGAs/GOP.

America has had even more corrupt/authoritarian/cult of personality leaders than Trump. They were younger and their brains still worked so they did way more damage than trump too. Most Americans just don't learn much history so can't compare.

> America has had even more corrupt/authoritarian/cult of personality leaders than Trump.

Like who?


Andrew Jackson to this day is a darling among conservatives in America.

Assuming you're from the USA, your two main parties are exactly like that. The appearances have changed, but Obama drone-assassinating random children on the other side of the world was not much better than what Trump is doing.

Not defending Trump, to be clear, just saying US imperialism and fascism has much deeper roots and that removing Trump is not going to fix any issues the rest of the world has with the USA.


USA government is corrupt, true. Current admin is balls-out corrupt in ways that have a French legislator calling out that impeachment would have happened there. It's shockingly out in the open corrupt, and that's saying a lot because most of the people ripping us off want to be somewhat quiet about it and not draw attention.

I didn't hear about this french legislator, but that's funny given the level of rampant corruption in french government. Nothing new (see also Pasqua, Foccart, etc), but in the past decades the information was not widely available so it was at least possible to pretend not to know.

Much of the government including Macron himself are involved in corruption scandals. Others are involved in rape scandals. Others in fiscal fraud. But you're correct they're not as open about it as Trump is.


Can you point to an objective assessment of Obama's drone policy?

Unfortunately, i don't know of a complete reference resource. I'd be interested if you found one. A quick research later i found this CFR resource [1] which probably underestimates the number of civilians killed.

I remember reports at the time on the Intercept and other media about the entire kill chain. If i remember correctly, the policy was to count anyone who was not proved to be a civilian as an active enemy in the body count. There was this DOD/CIA press conference announcing they made a targeted killing and that their target assessment was mostly based on the individual's height.

Then there's of course Obama famously and publicly joking about his children's lovers suggesting they should behave or would get killed by « predator drones ». [2] Let me know if you dig interesting links on the topic!

[1] https://www.cfr.org/articles/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

[2] https://abcnews.com/WN/president-obama-tells-joke-jonas-brot...


It was not better, it was less. US imperialism has deep roots, yes, but a large chunk of the world who would tolerate a moderate level of it, don't tolerate this level.

I don’t see any not tolerating it in practice.

A lot of invective, but nothing in practice that really indicates not tolerating.


I hear rumblings about foreign companies disconnecting from American services and products. You don't turn large ships on a dime, but they are turning.

I don't think it was less, though only future historians will come up with actual numbers. It was less public, though.

Most of the world never tolerated it. Even when western governments tolerated it, the population did not; see also the huge worldwide demonstrations against the Iraq war.

I think the difference in perception is because the european oligarchy is now being effectively treated as was previously the rest of the world, so they're now taking a stance because they feel threatened, whereas they previously saw themselves as aligned with the US government no matter what.


… and legalized bribes as lobbying.

It is also because corruption is called lobbying in America. Corporate lobbying should be illegal and punished severely (including capital punishment for directors and confiscation of the corporation).

This. Came here to say this. People completely forget about this supposed nuance when comparing US and Europe, but this is exactly what leads to fundamentally different outcomes in legislation and, by extension, people's expectations of their governments. That frog is long-time cooked.

As an ex-expat to US, I never could stop smh over how Americans are not making it a number 1 issue for themselves. Private prison, private healthcare, gun industry, all types of small industries keep US government in their pockets and the society, as a whole, in a complete gridlock, unable to meet its actual expectations.


Not that most other nations do dramatically better, alas.

There's actually few that are this bad. Generally we refer to them as developing countries or war torn.

People believe whatever authority tells them. It's one of those bug/feature things.

It’s not like “privacy first EU” didn’t just try to pass Chat Control

The EU did not pass Chat Control is the key message here. Your framing is strange.

And only 40% of people still support Trump. But the analogy is the same.

If you have 10 friends and ask them where they want to eat for dinner and six say let’s go to an Italian restaurant and 4 say “let’s kill Bob and eat him”, you still have a shitty group of friends.

It only takes one controversy to tip the scales. All governments have a propensity to want more power.


> All governments have a propensity to want more power.

Some governments have more effective checks-and-balances than others. The EU is a much looser confederation than the US, with significantly more power still invested in the member states (many of whom themselves are also loose confederations of semi-autonomous provinces...)


And let terrorism happen to any number of the member states. They would demand Chat Control being passed

The EU is no stranger to terrorism? The troubles in Ireland, ETA in Spain, Al Qzaeda and ISIL in France/Spain/Germany, domestic terrorism in Norway/Germany/Denmark - all in the last 35 years.

If you want a government of saints, you will be sorely disappointed. The four people who want to kill Bob and eat him for dinner will always exist, and the important part is to not let them actually decide on the dinner plan instead of just throwing your hand up in the air and giving up on planning dinners because some people are loonies and should not be given power.

Yeah, just like with Chat Control and such, it takes vigilance and informing people around you in order to deny these sorts of things from happening, but we can take some respite in it not happening. The USB-C regulation changed things for the better by forcing the most obstinate member of the mobile phone ecosystem to adopt the connector. The replaceable battery regulation will force manufacturers to make their devices more repairable, and that is a good thing.

Discounting that because of political mistakes that were only narrowly avoided seems frankly myopic. You can't just argue against all the good things the EU has done with "whatabout Chat Control"


The analogy is not the same. Trump was elected. Chat Control failed its vote.

So - I know folks who have mulled over attaching the emitter of a microwave oven to a parabolic 2.4ghz antenna (indeed, same spectrum).

It would be cool... For anyone who does not want children one day.


It's a plus from the manufacturer side - kitchen gadgets you keep more than 10 years.

With required smartphone app, it is almost assured to not work in 10 years, and you have to buy another one. Just another method of planned obsolesence.


> It would not be fair, because the point of having divisions is allow women to compete in a competition that is not dominated by men.

Really, what it is is being dominated by Testosterone. Also why we ban steroid use, and many other things along the same lines.

I would suggest that most Olympians - both female and male (whatever your definition) likely have a higher than normal amount of that hormone.


Maybe we just make 100% of Olympic Athletes take E to balance things out.

> created by people with a great sense of humor

The real problem with AI slop is not the AI. It's the people. It's always the people.

The clickbait has started fooling people more than before, with the latest videos being halfway believable (except for the circumstances of the videos).

Technology enables the most malicious and self-interested, and systems need to be adjusted to not reward that, or users need to become wise to it.

With the amount of early 2000's style clickbait ads still around, I'm not sure we ever vanquished Web 1.0 style clickbait, it just got crowded out by ever more sophisticated forms.


Parts of the OS were designed for Office. (Windows installer service, for example)

He was definitely trying to make a point, and then immediately undercut it. It is not just you.

Lots of fans in the Philippines, apparently.

I have seen some shit go down in 7/11's at 1am. You are not kidding.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: