Maybe there's no room for it to happen because things don't really "go away" anymore. Any 90's act with a modest amount of success is on Spotify and has a subreddit.

In fairness, Twitter (at least, the default uncurated experience) has not been very fun either. But maybe constant antagonism is at least more *interesting* than constant doom?

but at the end of the day, you have to end up arguing from some combination of efficacy (e.g., it will never happen, and pushing for it would massively damage our credibility) and strange moral calculi (e.g., the total discomfort caused by universal masking would outweigh its benefits).

Universal masking is the sort of thing that is hard to argue against. It would almost certainly reduce deaths and chronic illnesses, and yet almost no one wants it (outside of emergency situations). You can call people who advocate for universal masking weirdos, and you're even right!,

There's "liking" AI the way a craftsman likes a useful tool, sure. But then there's "liking" AI in, like, an ideological way.

Also, while, yes, guns bad, think about tradeoffs. Gun control would take a massive amount of political capital (it's a red-line issue for a lot of people), and it would prevent a pretty small amount of harm compared to, say, real universal healthcare.

Thing is, any remotely realistic gun control legislation probably wouldn't have prevented this. The gun was a hunting rifle that is available even in countries with real gun control laws.

It's insane to me that people acted like this was some sort of slam-dunk piece of evidence. Is it unheard of for someone to have different politics from their family's?

"If you read this you are gay, lmao" is exactly the sort of thing you see in certain self-aware extremely online queer spaces. The fact that some liberals can only imagine it as hate speech reveals an inability to think outside their own conceptual frames.

1776? I would have chosen 49 BC (the year Caesar crossed the Rubicon).

Nate's point is not wrong, but it is overly-flattering. Being a (good) risk-taker makes you more likely to succeed, but there's nothing virtuous about it.

"He recently did similar things in the Linux kernel and Asahi Linux communities"

This is omitting the extremely important fact that he was the lead Asahi Linux dev.

The fact that we're talking about it means that it's working.

The exit strategy in particular is something that hasn't been discussed enough. Democrats should give a reasonable list of demands. This (a) makes it harder to blame them, (b) gives them talking points, and (c) makes it possible to end the shutdown. Oh, and I guess they could get some wins, too.

His actions are indistinguishable from those of a Russian asset, regardless of whether he actually is one or not.

"my AI does not correctly identify nuclear war as an existential risk" ok so don't put it in charge of the nukes???

Oh, Paul Graham has gone MAGA? Jesus, it's completely infested Silicon Valley.

I keep saying that they will pay dearly for leaning into the "king" aesthetic. You couldn't give the opposition a more American argument.

Two whoever wrote this blurb/headline: Why do you do this job? What is even the point? Why did you get into journalism in the first place?