Not simply because it had defense contractors…

You made an editorial choice to leave out the part about selling weapons to Israel to use against Gaza.

Once can agree or disagree with the action to disrupt the career.

Either way, I find your omission a bit glaring.

Is your omission of the attacks on October 7 carried out by Hamas equally glaring? How do you know what exactly Israel will do with the weapons? They presumably need this for defense as any country needs weapons for defending themselves.

It was omitted because it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter which ally the US sells weapons to. If the Gazans attacked Luxembourg, Luxembourgers have the right to defend themselves (and win) too.

I’m sure you’re also applying the same logic to Iran and saying they have a right to defend themselves?

I apologize for bringing up irrelevant information.

Is there a specific reason for suspicion?

The fact that we're only hearing one side is suspicious enough

Yeah I apply that principle.

To be honest, it's that plus the fact that this article omits things we already know. It wasn't just that he "attended a pro-Palestine protest at Cornell University," they shut down a jobs fair. I went to a liberal college too, I know that a lot of these "peaceful" protests are actually quite forceful and infringe on others' rights more than anyone ever reports.

My bias is in the other direction if anything. The author was protesting the US involvement with Israel, and even if he did something wrong, I believe he was targeted for this reason only. If you ask me, Israel has way too much control over US politics and other institutions. AIPAC and ADL ought to be classified as foreign entities because they de facto represent Israel's govt here, and there are some people in those orgs I consider outright traitors to the USA because they're making us pay taxes to a small country overseas. We need like a Tea Party 3.0 (unfortunately 2.0 already happened).

Think of it as us giving them weapons for free, either way we're paying for it so their taxes don't have to. Egypt and Jordan's aid are for Israel's protection too. The only thing that has ever rivaled this was Ukraine aid, which wasn't bipartisan as we've seen.

This is the exact same logic as the people who complain about NASA "wasting" money.

But beyond the fact that the aid is basically a subvention for American defence companies (Israel spends way more than 3 billion on American weapons), it also protects American weapons manufacturers from Israeli competition through other terms in the agreement, which is actually a serious threat to them.

Yep it's the same logic. Everyone knows NASA is expensive, but people disagree over whether it's worth.

That full amount of weapons aid is a cost to taxpayers no matter how it's spun. Republicans cut aid to Ukraine because it was too expensive and other countries weren't giving enough, and the hypocrisy wasn't lost on people when our govt turned around and boosted the aid to Israel instead. If weapons aid were free like you're suggesting, that $10B+ Israel gets would also go to Ukraine and anywhere else we care about. And the Mid East is unimportant compared to Europe or east Asia, that's why no other major powers are fighting over it, so our "great adversary" is just the backwards country Iran.

$10B+? Israel gets $3B a year, and spends approximately $30B on American weapons. I guess if you don't like gas in your care, the middle east is unimportant, yes.

$3.8B is only the baseline scheduled amount. We give more each time there's a war, like $17.9B for Gaza. There isn't a net cash flow to us either, they're getting it all for free. Where did you get the $30B figure?

During peacetime, there's enough oil production outside the Mid East that OPEC has no teeth, as we saw in the 2010s. Not that our strategy of supporting a non-oil-producing country has helped us get oil from the Mid East either. We sanctioned off one of the largest producers, and the others are always a fine line.

Thank you for elaborating. Now I understand where you are coming from better.

It’s a huge pet peeve of mine when people don’t say what they are actually thinking :)

Yes, I'm sure the Jews control the world...

ICE is free to speak. I don't think they have interest to explain why they hunt someone.

It's true, by not speaking ICE loses some credibility, but they won't speak even when they're right.

Nor, I assume, do they have any interest to explain how they hunt someone.

Ah yes, companies don't have hands. Nothing to burn!

One of the weaknesses is incentivizing people to do horrible things, if that makes their bet a wining one.

Time to wake up:

π*0.6: two and a half hours of unseen folding laundry (Physical Intelligence)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpHapIlJnMo

Looks like the first two hours were spent trying to fold the same t-shirt :)

It’d be cool to see your process in depth. You should record some of your sessions :)

I mostly believe you. I have seen hints of what you are talking about.

But often times I feel like I’m on the right track but I’m actually just spinning when wheels and the AI is just happily going along with it.

Or I’m getting too deep on something and I’m caught up in the loop, becoming ungrounded from the reality of the code and the specific problem.

If I notice that and am not too tired, I can reel it back in and re-ground things. Take a step back and make sure we are on reasonable path.

But I’m realizing it can be surprisingly difficult to catch that loop early sometimes. At least for me.

I’ve also done some pretty awesome shit with it that either would have never happened or taken far longer without AI — easily 5x-10x in many cases. It’s all quite fascinating.

Much to learn. This idea is forming for me that developing good “AI discipline” is incredibly important.

P.s. sometimes I also get this weird feeling of “AI exhaustion”. Where the thought of sending another prompt feels quite painful. The last week I’ve felt that a lot.

P.p.s. And then of course this doesn’t even touch on maintaining code quality over time. The “after” part when the LLM implements something. There are lots of good patterns and approaches for handling this, but it’s a distinct phase of the process with lots of complexities and nuances. And it’s oh-so-temping to skip or postpone. More so if the AI output is larger — exactly when you need it most.

It kind of sounds like you are saying it is impossible to improve on the current state of the world.

That if it was possible to improve things, someone would have already done it. And they haven’t, so it must not be possible.

That feels a bit extreme… Maybe I’m misunderstanding?

No, it is certainly possible to come up with an innovation that allows progress.

But the tone I get from discussions about repairability and performance is that it would be trivial to make the device, if only businesses wanted to.

However, given the fact that it hasn’t happened yet from a variety of alternative manufacturers, the probability seems very low that the ideal device is possible with current technology at a price that is viable.

Basically, it is a competitive market (or was), and what won out was what was possible. Barring some leap in technology, it is unrealistic to assume we can do better without suffering tradeoffs.

Are you saying there isn’t an actual sycophancy problem?

We are talking about overall patterns here, not the experience of a small subset of skilled and careful users.

> (b) bombing is very expensive so nobody actually profits from the insider trading

The people profiting aren't buying the bombs with their own money.