The comment he is responding to expresses contempt for Zig’s LLM policy, and does so in a thread that is unrelated to Zig’s LLM policy. I think he’s showing some frustration here, but frankly I get it. Would anybody like to comment on the post?
> the page reads like an open source “We’re finished, we’re tired.” rather than the razzmatazz of a Microsoft release.
The vibe selects the audience perhaps.
People who are tired and just want to finish their work like the first style. People who want to do more cool work more quickly, maybe without finishing, like the second. Depends on the work, I suppose.
Suharto was responsible for his own rise. He took money and intel from wherever he liked and was basically an independent & ruthless strongman. Neither he nor other Indonesians need to be infantilized by lazy neocolonial narratives.
The coup was literally armed and equipped by the US. The US provided intelligence, made the plan, did the homework. They even gave them list of targets. Wherever you wanna draw the line, no one would seriously deny that he could've gained power without the US.
The US' strategy to use a proxy to commit heinous crimes against humanity is named after this event. It's called the Jakarta Method.
The line is the time. Suharto seized the capital by himself and became the voice of the military. The US watched and decided, in that beginning, that this up-and-comer could work in their interests. The US and Suharto then used each other for the next 30 years.
You wrote "the US put him in power" and I say that's babying.
Many feel X, or gating access to X, is fundamentally unjust, superseding the guidelines.
Feeling injustice converts the loss into a claim: "I didn't just lose free access, we're owed free access." The GP questioned whether the inconvenience is an injustice. The flags came because that question threatened the claim.
Free speech talk decorates a claim that, imo, doesn't really have much purchase.
> But when reflecting on the biggest mistakes of his career, Zuckerberg said his largest one was a “political miscalculation” that he described as a “20-year mistake.” Specifically, he said, he’d taken too much ownership for problems allegedly out of Facebook’s control. “Some of the things they were asserting that we were doing or were responsible for, I don’t actually think we were,” said Zuckerberg. “When it’s a political problem… there are people operating in good faith who are identifying a problem and want something to be fixed, and there are people who are just looking for someone to blame.”
TechCrunch then goes on to blame Zuckerberg by insinuation. As someone who dislikes Facebook and Zuckerberg, I think Big Tech is a rather convenient boogeyman for fallout from the 2016 election & beyond.
There's also the fact that all parties involved benefits from overstating the story. Facebook doesn't hate the reputation that their impact is so powerful as to sway elections. Cambridge Analytica and whatever they turned into has a reference customer like any other. Those who lost the election has an explanation that doesn't involve having to change.
Zuckerberg sounds a bit entitled in that interview. Yes, it was a chore having to appear in the senate and all, but he would probably not hesitate to take that same chance again if he could. As they say, all attention is good attention, and that probably goes double if you personally control the biggest social network on the planet.
Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewalling body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... so they demand police lose control of the cameras.
I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube
Your link shows that the progressives were in favor of the cameras, but the moderates voted it down because a study showed no change in police behavior so it wasn't a critical need when they were facing a budget shortfall.
It’s a flattering phrase, not a thoughtful one. It gives the illusion of higher level thinking that’s beyond our actual ability. The phrase also justifies writing without thinking, i.e. most internet comments.
The best thinkers I know mostly use writing for refinement, distillation— as a tool. The worst thinkers I know are owned by writing; they require its fixation & stimulation upfront to compensate for limited attention spans.
reply