Discord cuts ties with identity verification software, Persona

It's all of those, many more and does the content injustice.

Don't talk about the bad things does no one any good.

Yes most of us have read the rule. And I wasnt complaining in my comment I was directing the author as to why their submission was getting complaints and flagged.

Stomping your feet that it doesn’t matter when people are telling your article is slightly unreadable really doesn’t make you or your article worthwhile to invest time in. No matter how good it is.

Have a quirky website fine, but if you have important information you want to be taken seriously for, maybe consolidate that information into a more accessible format. Otherwise people will tell you AND do otherwise.

I didn't flag it. I wouldn't unless the content was problematic, which it is not!

This is my problem with it. Put in a mute button if you're going to do this, otherwise it's just user hostile. No problem with stylized websites and fun animations.

>unless you mean it was submitted less than 4 days ago

maybe you are unaware, but you can browse HN without an account, and you can browse previous submissions (years back, even!). its not like i can only see posts made in the last 4 days.

second, i saw the original post because it was posted in this very comment chain we are on, 5 hours ago, by bondarchuk (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47137961).

my turn! what is your comment trying to accomplish by cross-examining me about something completely unrelated? what point are you trying to make?

if you think my comment is wrong, you should talk about the contents of the comment, not the age of my account.

the point rogerrogerr is making is that a government is not going to be tripped up by "teter piel", just like you werent.

You think Teter Piel is going to fool Palantir spyware?

> This administration was collecting lists of people who spoke negatively about ICE from social media like a week ago.

Source for this? This goes against many values of the US, so I'm surprised to see this statement thrown out so nonchalantly.

its important to point out that its not about being a thorn in the government's side. you just have to not submit fully. in fact, even if everyone did submit completely, a fair number of people would still need to be rounded up and tortured just to keep the fear alive.

why use that specific word though?

Let me reframe a bit on this one.

You are correct that it's not a distinctly organized group, but very loosely organized with people continually carrying the baton forward in the relay race to remove our rights. Each runner is going to be slower or faster than the previous one, but they're still running in the same direction.

A cornerstone of NCLB was to expand the funding for Charter Schools across the United States (rather than fund public education). And while these schools are supposed to be non-religious, a small provision of NCLB allowed parents to choose private, religious options if their schools fell behind (which, given the draconian testing expectations, made it pretty easy).

So maybe the NCLB Act took the long way around to get where we're at today, but it was still always headed in this direction as soon as it offered private schools as a funded alternative to public school, rather than investing in our public schools with our public funds.

On the larger issue of what you're saying, it can be difficult to distill the information down in a way that makes sense when all of it is a very complex web of people and power and ideaologies.

At the end of the day, it took 50 years, but they did succeed in getting rid of Roe vs. Wade eventually. The relentless pursuit of this effort which took 50 years of adaptation and pushing as hard as possible in every area without relenting, even when they hadn't succeeded in every direction, is what made this happen.

I expect no less from these further pushes now that we're over that hump. Maybe these efforts fail today, but they will continue to push where they can until they figure out ways in which they can succeed.

It's quite relentless and those of us whom are on the other side of this definitely need to recognize the threat for what it is. Which, to your statement, makes this so much more dangerous than if it were just a single headed hydra.

I think you're the one not knowing your enemies here. There is a plan to strip queer people of rights, it is already well underway. You cannot possibly have an effective plan of opposition if you don't acknowledge the incredible economic, social, and technological resources that have been spent spreading and nurturing the prejudices that you can now call "uncoordinated." A lot of the individuals furthering these measures do not identify themselves with "a plot," sure, but it doesn't mean they don't have a role in it.

Giving the overprudish religious fanatics what they want to earn their support has actually been an open plan of the right wing in the US since at least Reagan.

Reagan chose not to do anything about the AIDS crisis partially because it was a "gay" disease, and the religious right was openly happy and proud that the gays were dying.

I thought about the same recently, in the context of the Epstein files.

You don't become a billionaire by being moral. Each time you don't do something because it's wrong, you lost opportunity to make more money. You start with smaller things, then your standards slide more and more, until you are a billionaire, and you're so corrupt there isn't anything for you to do except make more money.

Which makes me wonder, how many people went to Epstein's island not because they like diddling kids, but because they needed to network with Epstein to make more money. How many actively participated just to be in his in-group? Not because they enjoyed, they just were so corrupt that they would do anything for business.

Where do you guys come up with these ideas?

Simply having a lot of money makes someone evil? Why? They are obviously all quite competitive in business but the philanthropy they've done is pretty crazy. Gates for example is giving away hundreds of billions of dollars. What does it even matter if he's compassionate or not if he's doing that?

It's not puzzling. Journalism was murdered because it asked Nixon too many questions. So now unless you softball interviews, you just don't get to interview anyone, so the only news orgs with content to monetize are the ones just printing Press Releases and being a backboard for "interviews".

It sure is fun how the party who screams about "personal responsibility" seems to get very upset if you ask a responsible person to explain themselves and their actions.

You're talking about normal technological developments that yes generally follow Econ 101 patterns. But AGI isn't like that. If AGI or something like it comes about it won't be a normal technology. The upside case for investors is that frontier models eliminate millions of jobs and remain controlled by a small group of owners. That's why they are investing sums unprecedented in human history. If all white collar work and an increasing amount of blue collar work is supplanted by AI how do those masses of newly unemployed folks make a living without wealth redistribution?

If AI capability plateaus and ends up as a normal technological development then I agree with you that it will mostly work out for the best. But that's not the scenario I'm worried about and plenty of folks in the industry are warning that's not the most likely path at this point.

So far prices have generally gone up, which indicates the pie available is scarcer.

I am looking forward to the day where more electricity, electronics, food, and housing are produced thanks to AI; but in the mid-term it feels like an AI bubble pop would do more to bring the price back down.

Claiming that wealth isn't zero sum, and demanding people have faith in the US system of capitalism, is not reassuring.

For sure, I've been rolling my eyes at the Mars colony stuff for probably a decade or more now. I get that it's a fun futuristic thought experiment for nerds but the idea that Elon's going to send up some modern day Mayflower in the near future that builds a thriving settlement is obvious nonsense.

J.K. Rowling is now infamous for using her vast wealth to lobby against transgender rights.

Taylor swift does seem to be using AI or something. I mean she's nice but not as nice as South park creators imo.

I have heard so much about Steven Spielberg but I must admit that I don't know much about the man but to me it does feel like you must be correct that he's a good guy, though I do see some controversies of steven spielberg on internet but South park is infamous with controversies as well.

There are 3028 billionaries from Forbes list and many many more almost-billionaires yet we have at most so few good billionaires that you can count them on your fingers.

One outcome of the Epstein files release is getting direct evidence, very clearly, how goddamned stupid and crass and uninteresting these assholes are.

They talk like the dumbest 1850s british aristocrats. They talk as if they are discussing how lazy the Irish are and how that is definitely why they are starving. They have objectively stupid opinions. They believe themselves especially smart as they fire off one or two sentences about high school level philosophy topics, and they somehow find a way to generate wrong answers to questions that really shouldn't even have wrong answers. All the while, they misspell everything because apparently they are outright illiterate too.

Like, they say such utterly stupid things as "Women are too emotional to make good decisions". As if they don't do the things they do for extremely petty reasons.

And yet, still some morons all over the US think they must be geniuses because they fell ass backwards into a literal bubble and came out rich. You can publicly be an absolute moron and the Wealth propaganda in the US is so bad people will still insist you must be magically genius and only pretending to be stupid.

Did they even encrypt their "I'd like to purchase a rape of a little girl please" emails?

>They're not so much offended by it as that they would like to join the billionaire class

Same thing happened in WWII Nazi Germany. This timeline has an eerie similar feeling as the masses line up to the slaughter.

I don't know. What percentage of HN commenters really have serious aspirations for being a YC founder? 0.01%? 0.001%? Im not sure "What will YC think of me" is really that much of a driver of commenting behavior here.

People simp for billionaires all over the web, not just on HN. I've never understood it, and I probably never will. But, there are enough of them and their billionaire-defense commentary pops up everywhere. Not to mention the obvious downvote rings that will hit you if you ever insult one of a few key billionaires with large followings. This is widespread behavior and not about wanting to be a startup founder.

Bro you pair that with his other behavior and you can clearly see this is not a good guy. It's likely he is at least an accelerationist (Of the bad kind) of not more.

Nobody was suggesting normal people understand or agree with transhumanism.

Hesitating to answer a question that may have nuance is not being “ambivalent”. He literally says “there’s multiple questions implicit here” in response to the question asked of him. I genuinely think people like you making sweeping assumptions about others are way more dangerous. People who refuse to critically think or analyze a situation and jump to conclusions.

Not to mention that he and his cohorts had such close ties to Epstein that I find it impossible to imagine he didn't know exactly what was going on. This is someone who's known for building profiles of anyone who mentions him online, not some ambivalent rich guy.

Question 1: If a human modifies with themselves with enough sci-fi tier technology are they still "Human"? (And therefore if humans "ascend" past their biology, humanity technically wouldn't survive)

Question 2: If a person cannot conceive that the 1st question is an interesting question, with multiple nuances, are they basically an idiot?

What you’re saying isn’t necessarily wrong, I just don’t think it adds up cleanly to “evil”. Skipping nuance is bad, I think

[dead]

No system is flawless. Every democratic system has its own issues. What is increasingly clear is that the current crop of tech billionaires do not belong anywhere near a position of power. God help us. The quality of individual is disappointing.

certainly better than a feudal system being passed off as libertarian