I didn't mention "porn", and there's a reason I included domestic violence simulations in list of specific things they're targeting; when phrased like that it sounds like a reasonable category to ban. I haven't played that specific game but it certainly sounds close enough that it could be caught even if not intended (and maybe it is intended - even if I trust what people say on the internet and the game is well-meaning, that doesn't mean it is actually healthy or sane).
If it really is an example of a rare false positive, a manual fix for that one specific game is a reasonable thing to seek, without giving the pedos their heyday like most of the comments here suggest.
You might disagree with me and others here and even want censorship for games. But don't you think it's should be regulated by your local government for your specific country or by whatever regulator there is where you live?
Do you really think Visa and MasterCard should be making decisions what is acceptable for like everyone?
Otherwise any random weirdos from UK or Australia will censor what are you allowed to watch or play in the US.
And China can also put pretty good pressure on payment processors too. They'll certainly want many games gone since they are worse than pedos for CCP.
> One piece of evidence against this is that the primary source linked above no longer works at OpenAI, and hasn't chosen to blow the whistle on the supposed fraud.
Everywhere I worked offered me a significant amount of money to sign a non-disparagement agreement after I left. I have never met someone who didn't willingly sign these agreements. The companies always make it clear if you refuse to sign they will give you a bad recommendation in the future.
It was a comment revealing his attitude towards what would soon become his customers in a globally-impactful business over which he has sole control. It’s more relevant than ever today.
In most cases those comments weren’t about the service they still running at 40. His comment was also him self-reporting that he shouldn’t be trusted with user data, when his whole business revolves around user data. If it was some off color joke in poor taste, I wouldn’t care so much.
He's an entirely different person now. There is no one under the age of 45 on the planet who would say "you know, yeah, I'm fundamentally the same person I was 22 years ago."
I'm not saying he's a better person. Just different. Judge him by what he says and does now, which is no better.
I feel that I fundamentally am the same person. More experienced, of course. Less naive and idealistic. But my sense of right and wrong? Pretty much the same.
You can be an asshole at 22 and still be an asshole at 45. You might be an asshole in different ways, but an asshole is still an asshole. As I'm often reminded of myself
The things Donald Trump says are sufficiently untethered from reality that whether a given statement is truth or lie could be used as a pseudorandom number generator, so I don't know if that statement counts for or against my claim.
I don't disagree with your point, but nothing is absolute. In this case, he's essentially done a tremendously good job of showing us since then that, no, we can't trust him. He's more than lived up to his words.
Is there any proof that he said that, apart the movie? I'm not arguing he didn't, but the only place I've found to support that is the movie. I didn't try very hard either...
The petrodollar, which largely depends on the US having significant influence over global oil supply, is arguably the main reason why the USD is the global reserve currency and an enormous reason why the US is as wealthy as it is.
The petrodollar is severely overrated by people who claim it's the cause for every foreign policy decision they disagree with. USD is attractive because the US government is stable and US companies are attractive investments, due to a historical track record of competence and rule of law adherence - unlike, say, Saudi currency, or Russian currency, or Chinese currency. The US government doesn't do a lot of currency manipulation relative to those other countries either.
Of course, that historical record is being shat upon currently, and the importance of petroleum is on a downward trajectory from here on.
If you are what AMD needs to catch up then you can just go work for NVidia for 3x the pay. This market sucks but top tier engineers in the niche they need are not a dime a dozen.
What I said was: “it’ll likely make up for lower compensation.”
The point is, someone might join AMD because they believe in the mission, not just for the paycheck. I followed that with: “It isn’t always about the money,” which is consistent with my original comment.
The real subtext is something I care deeply about: Nvidia is a monopoly. If AI is truly a transformative technology, we can’t rely on a single company for all the hardware and software. Viable alternatives are essential. I believe in this vision so strongly that I started a company to give developers access to enterprise grade AMD compute, back when no one was taking AMD seriously in AI. (Queue the HN troll saying that nobody still does.)
If the stock goes up while they’re there, great, that’s a bonus.
Your original comment only talked about compensation and why AMD's stock might make up for lower pay. This thread tangent (starting with your comment) was about compensation and explaining why working for AMD, if your goal is to maximize profit, is dumb. Adding "well there are other reasons" after your original comment doesn't change your original comment where you had none of that context.
In the context of maximizing compensation, working for AMD is dumb. Your own comments support this.
This looks to be about the point where this exchange turned into a tit-for-spat...a really bad one. This is not what HN is for, so please avoid this in the future. I know it isn't always easy to do that, but you both violated the site rules really badly here.
"Then why is your original comment about compensation?"
I answered your very specific question, even gave you my own additional context as a friendly thing to do, and now you are going off on some sort of maximizing rant for what purpose?
This looks to be about the point where this exchange turned into a tit-for-spat...a really bad one. This is not what HN is for, so please avoid this in the future. I know it isn't always easy to do that, but you both violated the site rules really badly here.
I guess what I was politely trying to say is your original comment is misleading and pointless if your actual point is that things besides what you mentioned in your original comment are what really matter. So my point was - why make the original comment at all if it wasn't what you meant?
You don't think it's misleading to talk about how working at AMD can make you more money because of the stock appreciation, despite this being objectively incorrect due to it being a public company, when you don't think the reason to work for AMD is because of money?
Sure, agree to disagree. You have been anything but clear.
You go to work at ANY company, public, private, whatever.
You probably get stock options.
Those stock options can gain or lose value over time.
Generally, the incentive for options is that by working at the company, you're contributing to the overall value of the company, which makes those options more valuable.
I believe there’s more to choosing a company than just money. I don’t work at my own company for the paycheck. I’ve put in decades of hard work and I’m fortunate enough not to need the money. I’m driven by a bigger mission: helping AMD become a real alternative to a monopoly. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear to you. But when I was, you called my comment pointless and misleading. Now you’re just making it personal in an effort to psychopathically prove I’m somehow unclear. That’s not okay. Get over yourself, go outside, touch grass, whatever. I’m done engaging with you.
You do not need to work for a public company to own stock in that company. You can work at another company and simply buy that stock and get the same benefit.
I think you should take your own advice and go outside and touch grass. Cheers.
> You do not need to work for a public company to own stock in that company. You can work at another company and simply buy that stock and get the same benefit.
You have to work for the company to truly affect change within the company. That's the point you're missing.
If you really think whatever contributions you make to AMD with tens of thousands of employees are going to move the stock price so much that it's a better investment than working somewhere else that pays 3x better, then you're the one that needs to get over yourself.
Again, it isn't always about the money. 100% yes, a single individual can have a huge effect on a company and the stock price. Look at what Anush is doing and the stock price action since he started his new role.
Why you keep trying to make this personal, is beyond me. Feels aggressive and uncalled for.
I'm just responding to things you said. You told me to get over myself, so I'm just throwing it back at you. I think the only one taking this personally is you.
Let's just go back to "agree to disagree" because we're both tired of each other at this point.
Your original comment is pointless and misleading and I explained why. I didn't attack you or even your comment, I just pointed out what's wrong with it. Anyway sure, I'm happy to continue if you want.
> I’m done engaging with you.
You're the one that said this, not me. I was just trying to be kind and keep giving you an exit that you said you wanted. If you want to keep getting yourself worked up over a comment thread on HN, I'm happy to oblige. After all, according to you I'm acting psychopathically.
You’re forbidden from shorting. Buying is completely allowed unless you are classified an insider and even then trades are open for I believe a month after quarterly results.
Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. These vehicles clearly have utility beyond just public transit, but I'd rather they be an edge case rather than considered a main solution. So yeah, from my perspective the problem is being focused on profits instead of trying to solve the real problem with solutions that have already existed for decades.
If you zoom out a bit, your argument would be more-or-less the same when regular automobiles were replacing the functioning transit systems in the USA, specifically in LA.
I've never really understood this "improve public transit instead of autonomous vehicles" argument. They're two entirely distinct funding sources. Nothing is preventing us from improving public transit except the same things that always have.
Obviously funding public transit is good, but people usually phrase funding arguments as zero sum tradeoffs. You wouldn't write "bookstores are cool, but I'd rather have public transit", because there's no trade-off there. I'm assuming the OP actually meant something by writing their post the way they did.
People funding autonomous driving will obviously lobby against increased funding for public transit and they will also fund demonizing public transit.
Look at Musk and Vegas. The vast majority of mass transportation in Vegas should be handled by actual public transit, most likely high speed rail from LA and light rail along the Strip to downtown Vegas and a few other places.
Instead Vegas has a silly monorail, a few buses that don't even get dedicated bus lanes on 8+ lane stroads and something stupid like, dunno, 20 daily flights from LA. Plus Musk setting up tunnels or hyperloops or other stupidities.
I've worked on autonomous vehicles for 16 years and my largest philanthropic effort is improving public transit. The common theme is being really interested in transportation and wanting it to work well for people.
Cruise was also the top funder of one San Francisco's recent MUNI funding ballot propositions (which just barely failed). You can certainly have a cynical take on that, but they still did it.
Musk doesn't need autonomous vehicles to derail public transit. Hyperloop predated FSD, to use your example. Moreover, the objection applies equally to taxis and Uber/Lyft.
It's also not an actionable objection. Let's say we go and ban autonomous vehicles. Why wouldn't the same billionaires simply continue lobbying against public transit improvements and for the repeal of the ban? They have the money to do both.
We haven't failed to invest sufficiently in public transit for 50+ years solely because of billionaire lobbying. That's not the blocker.
It seemed to me to always have been a goalpost relocation. The talking point wasn't even a fringe view beforehand and if anything would be taken as an obvious diversion from those who are big-oil aligned. Instead it was first seen when electrification of transit was achieved by capitalism.
The watermelons simply couldn't accept that, it went against their article of faith that capitalism is responsible for all of the world's problems and could not provide any solutions. IF there is one thing that makes them the most angry it is solving problems without going to their preferred political alignment. So they all downloaded their latest talking points and reprogrammed themselves and declared that electric car's only purpose is to save the auto industry in spite of 48% of global transport carbon emissions coming from cars and vans.
> Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit.
Last mile is a PITA in the US. It is difficult to take the train from San Diego northward if you don't get there at 7AM because the parking will fill up.
At some point, Waymo can cross over into replacing a personal car for the last mile task. Right now, it's a bit expensive: $20/ride 2 ride/day 5 days/week * 50 weeks = $10,000 per year. Purchasing your own car still makes more sense. If that were $1,000 per year? No brainer--I'd dump my car in a heartbeat.
> Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit
False dichotomy.
Good public transport would be self driving cars as a feeder network to mass transit once the self driving tech is cheap enough.
It could only work well as work habits change to stop having peak hours (peak usage for low-utilization self-driving cars doesn't seem likely to be economical).
For many of us "good public transit" would make zero difference in our daily lives in the US. We just don't live somewhere that there will realistically be a bus stop or train stop within easy walking distance. I'm not even a long drive from a train station but it's absolutely unworkable as transportation for most purposes aside from going into the big city 9-5.
I didn't say it was easy. And I'm not talking about individual action. Governments should incentivize and force different things. Conceptually simple example: construction projects should require sustainability and aesthetics reviews, including, for example, use of better materials and green and walkable spaces. For example I find the butt ugly and cheap American solutions for sidewalks (I think continuously poured concrete cut into slabs with circular saws) much worse than the European ones (paving stones, often natural stone). The US is the richer country and it frequently looks cheaper and poorer.
What a terrible idea. I don't want my government to "force" things. Nor should idiot government bureaucrats have any authority over something as subjective as aesthetics.
Paving stones are terrible for skates, and not great for running either. Poured concrete is much smoother. And it's not cut with circular saws so I have no idea what you're referring to there.
And it doesn't hurt to plant more trees. American cities, especially in the South, seem to be utterly allergic to trees. Which makes even less sense in hot climates.
Or huge billboards. Lack of general greenery and hedges to block noise. Stroads. I could go on an on. The average built environment in US cities and suburbs is awful and again, cheap.
When I moved from country where I had to use public transit to a country where I could drive, my happiness (re transportation) increased by a large amount.
I am not sure how this relates to the whole "public transit vs cars" argument though.
And Tesla famously described Edison as an idiot for this very reason. Then Tesla revolutionized the way we use electricity while Edison was busy killing elephants.
> VCs are not betting that the company will be asymptotically good, just good enough to make an exit.
This is a misunderstanding of VC investment. Any competent VC expects most of their investments to go to zero. They're hoping a small percent of their investments will make up for the losses. The goal of a decent VC isn't to avoid bad investments so much as it is to make sure they get one good investment. A good investment in AirBnB/Google/Facebook will make up for dozens of speculative bets that go to zero.
No, this is wrong. VCs regularly bet on companies they expect to fail, and occassionally even know will fail. They sometimes put money into companies knowing they will never get it back. They do not expect a positive return on every investment.
It means cranking out hello world even faster i guess. I wonder how complex all these projects are people are proud to have completed with the help of AI.
I don't use AI to crank out complex parts of projects -- I use to crank out the tedious straight forward stuff that takes a lot of time that is necessary but low-value. Then I'm freed up to work on the hard and interesting stuff.
It depends on the value of x. I think it's safe to assume x <= 0.75, else they'd contribute negatively to their teams (happens from time to time, but let's be generous). Previously they'd be anywhere from a 0/10 to 3/10 programmer, and now they get up to 9/10 on a good day but sometimes are a net negative, as low as -2.25/10 on a bad day. I imagine that happens when tired or distracted and unable to adequately police LLM output.
It’s a riff on the “10x programmer” concept. People who haven’t worked with 10x programmers tend to not believe they exist.
I’m nowhere near that, but even unaided I’m quite a bit faster than most people I’ve hired or worked with. With LLMs my high quality output has easily tripled.
Writing code may be easier than reading it - but reading it is FASTER than writing it. And that’s what matters.
> Do you really want to compel selling access to rape games?
> Do you really want to compel selling access to incest games?
So ban the things you believe are the problem instead of blanket banning everything.