tgma

9 ms·

91.
by tgma 7mo ago
> When I wrote last week that the MacBook Neo is the first product from Apple with an A-series chip sporting more than one USB port — addressing complaints that the Neo’s second USB-C port only supports USB 2.0 speeds — a few readers poi
92.
by tgma 7mo ago
> I'm ignorant? Very. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan I'm not gonna debate the obvious with an account with 53 karma who denies the existence of basic stuff or not aware of the ob
93.
by tgma 7mo ago
> 30K is such an incredibly high number that you really have to be gullible to trust it. Correct; it's a very high number. Yes, either that, or shows how ignorant you are about the extent of brutality of the regime.
94.
by tgma 7mo ago
Trump also has said "I will bomb the shit out of them -- I don't care" on the campaign trail. I think a relatively accurate model of the people's opinion towards intervention might be quite simple: it is good if we win r
95.
by tgma 7mo ago
There have been numbers as high as 90k reported initially, so I wouldn't say it is "moving up" across time but across sources. There is no clear data, but at this point 30-32k appears to be the lower bound estimate over which
96.
by tgma 7mo ago
Trump himself confirmed this on Air Force One earlier today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/03/07/trump-... Nothing about this is such a wild claim if you are familiar with t
97.
by tgma 7mo ago
Look, I don't understand what you are debating here. I already agreed you can call USA regime just that should you choose to. I don't mind. You might get a scholarship to Columbia while at it. My post was simply to clarify to the
98.
by tgma 7mo ago
> Current campaigns will kill way more iranians. Your math is not mathing. 30-40k in 2 days unarmed civilians vs I dunno 6k almost all military in a week? If you look at the stats of executions etc you'll see civilian casualties in
99.
by tgma 7mo ago
Nothing stops you, but I suppose murdering tens of thousands of your own people is a fairly clear delineation that you are not a singular entity?
100.
by tgma 7mo ago
After they killed 40k+ in Jan? Perhaps.
101.
by tgma 7mo ago
Varies. Not all of them are equal. At least not in the same way. Distinctions are important. NYT, for example, employs Farnaz Fassihi who's a known regime shill. CNN recently sent a reporter live to the region who has to operate under
102.
by tgma 7mo ago
> Iranian side of the story Islamic regime 's side. Rather key distinction v. Iranian people.
103.
by tgma 7mo ago
No idea. But IIRC that specific line was associated with your own side projects that you wanted to get permission to open source and you were willing to Apache 2.0 it as opposed to asking the company to retain the copyright. They asked you
104.
by tgma 7mo ago
Isn't AFC test applicable here?
105.
by tgma 7mo ago
"This is not an officially supported Google product." Probably someone's hobby project or 20% time at best.
106.
by tgma 8mo ago
> bioweapons convention was successful Was it successful? The jury is still out.
107.
by tgma 8mo ago
Yes, I am aware. That is not entirely unreasonable if it touches the actual Supply Chain tree. I do fully sympathize that the extent of legality of that rule should be clarified/restricted if say, Claude is used by a separate divisio
108.
by tgma 8mo ago
You don't think Anthropic is going out of business any minute now, do you? This is just rhetoric. Affirmative evidence is they would just remove two paragraphs if they were.
109.
by tgma 8mo ago
I agree with your second paragraph; we will have to see to what degree the "viral" effect of Supply Chain Risk designation goes (perhaps you contract the DoD under an LLC that has a supply chain firewall from your company) and als
110.
by tgma 8mo ago
How did you get the "destroy your company" part? If HN sentiment is any evidence, they are even more popular than before. GPU is a constrained resource and I am sure they are going to have enough business to saturate what they go
111.
by tgma 8mo ago
That's a nice straw man you got there. I don't mind you characterizing the negotiation however you want. That's not the debate. Call it "shakedown" or "mafia" as someone else mentioned, or whatnot (althoug
112.
by tgma 8mo ago
Yes, I am entirely capable of doing that. Your point?
113.
by tgma 8mo ago
Well, great! Sounds like this is exactly what Anthropic wants and hopes for; for their technology to minimally benefit warfighting. Otherwise, are you suggesting they are so evil that they were just advertising those the terms to fool us an
114.
by tgma 8mo ago
Because you implied it here: > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. They want to "forcibly amend" is either within their rights per original contract, or n
115.
by tgma 8mo ago
How you characterize the behavior, Mafia or not, is of course your opinion, and I am sure if you are a voter/stakeholder you'd consider that in your political activity, but I'd appreciate if you clarify what you mean but your
116.
by tgma 8mo ago
And the point is? They made a voluntary business decision not to sell to them, whatever that number is. Possibly more than offset by marketing gains and loyalty from other segments; or not.
117.
by tgma 8mo ago
What are you suggesting here? US government breaching the contract already signed? I am not aware of that happening here. > Anthropic's terms were laid out in the contract the Pentagon signed, which they want to forcibly amend. It&#
118.
by tgma 8mo ago
I don't understand your point here. Looks like what you suggest is exactly what is happening. US government did not ban Anthropic from conducting business in the US. They just don't want them to influence their own supply chain, 1
119.
by tgma 8mo ago
Could it be that the problem is users’ own interest in being outraged? A reflection of their mental state and anxiety that they then project to Facebook as if that’s the root cause.
120.
by tgma 8mo ago
Some of the tactics used were questionable and basically looked like shakedowns for pushing the corporate targets to donate to his entities which then softened his stance around the alleged suboptimal civil rights situations.

More ›