Is it responsible to move slowly when your competitors are moving quickly? Depends on how your competitors perform. If they perform well, then your "responsibility" suddenly becomes your extinction.
> But I don't seem to see many bullets comin' through
> See many bullets comin' through
> Metaphorically, I'm the man
> But literally, I don't know what I'd do
So I suspect you're right. But I also suspect many people who see themselves as the "save the country" group would really be in the "save themselves" group, if push came to shove.
If you're like most Americans and pay taxes on time then there's absolutely no reason to be audited. The two possibilities are:
1. You are taking a lot of special deductions and not providing all the required documentation.
2. Or you're not reporting things accurately because there's some edge case in the tax code that you didn't understand but is easy for the IRS to catch (eg. sales of stock without cost basis reported).
Simplifying the tax code and funding the IRS more solves both of those because then they can focus on the real whales who are abusing the tax code the most.
Most likely 3. He has not gotten audited, he is just a temporarily-embarrassed billionaire, and a bunch of tax cheats convinced him that what would really improve his life is the government raising his taxes, because it isn't collecting theirs.
The fact that I can't get passkeys to work like 10% of the time makes me think they're significantly more secure. If I can't use them to access my account, an attacker definitely won't be able to /s
You're trying to put rational on irrational emotions. The reason people are so anti datacenter is because their favorite news site / social media told them to be anti datacenter. You're giving way too much credit to sheep's ability to think.
You are confusing mechanisms and statistical outcomes.
It's a bit like crowd dynamics. Each individual human is sentient, but if you observe a large enough crowd, there is no sign of sentience in its behavior.
People who are actively involved in politics and advocacy, as well as some terminally online people, often end up adopting the views of their peers. Because they are stuck in their bubbles, they don't consider other viewpoints plausible.
But most people are not like that. In most issues, they are exposed to multiple viewpoints they could plausibly adopt. The choices they make are ultimately their own. Of course, if you know the distribution of people's opinions and situations and the messaging they are exposed to, you can try to predict the distribution of choices. But those are still people's individual choices.
> But most people are not like that. In most issues, they are exposed to multiple viewpoints they could plausibly adopt. The choices they make are ultimately their own
Yes, but most people also come to the same pretty naive conclusions separately and then it looks like they just copy each other. It is pretty hard to tell the difference between low effort thinking and parrots.
If someone likes digging tunnels by hand, that's a hobby.
If someone is mad that tunneling companies make it hard for them to find "hand tunneling work", that's not a hobby. That's someone thinking their work is owed attention.
Go find a hobby that you like doing for yourself. Why do you think so many engineers turn to woodworking? It isn't because they think they're going to compete with Ikea.
You can keep saying it’s hideous to feel morally superior for yourself but it’s not working here. Rhetorical analogies? There is no rhetorical analogy here it’s a fair analogy. Plenty of people take up woodworking and it is definitely one of the most impractical hobbies out there. Most people do not think they are going to derive net positive value out of woodworking.
Respecting the subject on its own terms?
What happened to you, did you just come back from reeducation camp or something?
> seems like the most "moral" AI company on the surface
Not to me at all. Exactly the opposite. Anthropic seems like the big-bad-evil company in every fictional universe. You're right that they're so unsettling.
Obviously nobody really loves Meta, but I'd far rather Meta "win" at this point than Anthropic.
"Effective Altruism" is deeply ingrained in Anthropic's DNA and that makes them way more dangerous than any of the run-of-the-mill amoral corporations.
They are not "run-of-the-mill", but they are still amoral.
They have more power and can be more damaging to society than most corporations, but they are not guided by any specific ideology other than "how can we get more money/power to ourselves?".
What an extremely contrarian take (good is actually bad), to the point of being an absolutely predictable, closed-minded thinker. If a person always goes against the grain, they are as predictable as a person without their own opinions, always being led by others.
Anthropic did throw the UAE government under the bus in their "Detecting and countering misuse of AI: September 2026" report, specifically GTG-84002, which is framed in the report as a single misuse but bundles together a half dozen separate previously confidential projects from the UAE government, not all of which were unlawful/unethical (some were though).
Not trying to compare Anthropic to Meta, they're different beasts. But Anthropic is an unusual company in that it is willing to throw paying government customers under the bus if Anthropic unilaterally decides what those governments are doing is inappropriate.
Canva now owns Affinity. So regardless of the answer to that question, more options are nice. I have 0 faith that Canva will be good stewards of Affinitys original mission, despite making all of the Affinity products free (for now)
They're already proving not to be good stewards, as Affinity now got compressed into one app, AFAIK it's still lacking 100% feature parity with the original ones, and it being free is just a vehicle to make you sign up for an account, and to continuously show you upsells for the cloud subscription, right there in the UI, with the growing amount of "pro" features only available on paid subscription tiers.
I have no doubt that they will eventually enshittify Affinity, but combining the three apps into one was, imo, a good move. The suite was clearly meant to be one app from the start, but was sold as three separate apps for commercial reasons.
All three original apps contained each other's functionality. As a result, the new combined app is barely larger than one of the three previous apps, and switching between the modes is now much more convenient and has a better UX.
That's terrible news. I only use photo-editing software to lay stuff out for print once in a while, so hopefully I can get away without upgrading indefinitely.
reply