Unlurker|Replay|About
U.S. sees 5.7M more childless women than expected (psypost.org)
•
A lot of money was spent to make sure that happened
•
We should spend as much as possible to ensure that unwanted children are avoided. The cost to not is simply too high.
•
Related: Study Shows Number of Childless Women in the U.S. Continues to Rise - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45268830
Meta Ray-Ban Display: A Breakthrough Category of AI Glasses (meta.com)
•
This is really impressive for a first version of the AI glasses from Meta. Zuck really has cracked this one.
•
> you can accomplish everyday tasks—like checking messages, previewing photos, and collaborating with visual Meta AI prompts — all without needing to pull out your phone. Why do I need to pay $800 for this? I already paid a grand to have a phone disrupt my every waking moment!
•
I'm getting Macworld 2007 vibes
ABC pulls 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' off air 'indefinitely' over Charlie Kirk comments (cnbc.com)
•
Coming soon: broadcast is pulled after host’s comments disparage the current administration.
•
That is unironically what happened here. The comments Kimmel made here did not disparage Kirk, but rather the administration's reaction to his shooting.
•
Wow, Kimmel getting canceled wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card.
•
I've seen a large number of comments online saying the shooter was a trump supporter - I don't really understand where that information comes from as it contradicts nearly all released evidence I have seen. I wonder if kimmel's staff got sucked into it. This is the sort of thing I think a prediction market might be able sort out.
•
The left wing cancel culture era was stupid, annoying, and wrong, and this upcoming right wing era is bound to be just as stupid, annoying, and wrong.
•
I, too, remember when Obama has the FCC commissioner threaten to revoke broadcast licenses for the coverage of his tan suit. This type of both-sides-ism is dumb, especially here when one side is using the power of the federal government to get dissenting voices taken off the air.
•
Listen, we are allowed to not support businesses or personalities that we find odious. Everyone does it. This collaboration between corporations and the government to silence political dissent is something else entirely so can we please not “both sides” this ?
•
Idk should he be allowed to peddle unhelpful, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?
•
The recent cowardice of giant corporations (including tech giants) is really something to behold. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not deluded, I know these corporations only act in their own interest. It’s the short sightedness that amazes me. Look at the long game and it’s clear that free, liberal democracy has allowed capitalism in the US to thrive. Sacrificing that to achieve an immediate term stock market boost is nuts. Especially in this scenario, Kimmel will sign with Netflix or whoever and continue to be relevant. Your local ABC affiliate? The slide to irrelevance will just be accelerated.
I am largely neutral on this particular assassination, as I knew almost nothing about Mr. Kirk prior to his departure (just name recognition & basic political associations). But I do think, after decades of reflection, that comedians (of any color) are correct when they point out that racial humor shouldn't be off limits to any performer, of any color, but is... e.g. Owen Benjamin, Chappelle, Seinfeld
•
Where was the joke? It was simply an aggressive political statement that has been repeated thousands of times in the past few days. It's sort of typical for this sort of situation from their political opponents: those whiny people are so busy pointing fingers and acting like victims that you almost forget the actual victim. I'm not saying "where was the joke" as in it isn't protected speech, political speech is even more important to protect than jokes. But there's no joke here, typical of the last 10 years of Trump comedy. They're using this is an excuse to get rid of him; the media is shifting from anti-Trump mode to Trump mode. Everybody is rebranding. I'm sure Jon Stewart is going to come out with his new "boy, woke people are crazy" show on Paramount a year from now.
•
"Assassination" implies somebody paid for it. "Murder" is more apt.
•
It is an assassination, look up the definition.
•
Who paid Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, or Gavrillo Princip? Assassination is a subset of murder, with political motives. It seems very accurate in this situation
•
I’ve never seen this interpretation of the word before. Usually that’s a “hit.” An assassination is a murder if someone notable, often for political reasons.
•
¿por que no los dos? In this particular assassination, there's currently nothing more than official allegations & captured footage.
The summary at the top of the page says > ABC said it was pulling the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show off the air “indefinitely” after controversial comments by its host about the slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. but the article says the following, which is entirely different: > “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. > > “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.
•
> “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. Off topic, but has there been convincing evidence that the suspect is right wing/MAGA, as Kimmel implied? I've seen some posts on reddit to this effect, but they're far from convincing.
•
I guess he didn't see the info that the police released? https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/us/text-message-tyler-robinson-roomate-vis
•
The 2nd part is the quote from Jimmy Kimmel that he said on air that caused the "controversy", that resulted in the FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr to go on a podcast and threaten ABC/Disney with retaliatory action if they refused to take Kimmel off the air. CNN doesn't show a clip, but explains what was said & the events that caused this. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/business/video/abc-jimmy-kimmel-fcc-charlie-kirk-digvid Never believe those who claim to be in favor of free speech, but then use threats of legal intervention against those who practice it.
Reminds me of the Bill Maher cancellation after he made a 9/11 remark
•
There are parallels. Most Americans were united after 9/11 so they might not have noticed but there was an incredible chilling effect on free speech after 9/11.
•
His show was cancelled 8 months after that remark, after viewership and ad sales declined. It was not requested by the Bush administration. It doesn't seem too similar to me.
ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel's show 'indefinitely' after remarks about Charlie Kirk (cnn.com)
•
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482 .
"Discussion" (108 points, 107 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282485
•
First-posted (by just three ID increments!) was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482
"Free Speech" does not guarantee your employment; it promises you wont be arrested, usually; any combination of words can be interpreted as a threat.
•
Pretty sure it's supposed to prevent the FCC commissioner from threatening to pull your license though unless you fire a particular individual though.
You don't have to disregard what Kimmel said, because he hardly even said anything. Relevant portion is the first 8 mins of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk What, in the clip, could reasonably be referred to as "the sickest conduct possible?" No one with a healthy, functioning mind could possibly use that language to talk about Kimmel's comments in that clip.
•
Kimmel didn’t just ‘hardly say anything.’ In his monologue he framed the ‘MAGA gang’ as trying to ‘characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,’ and he mocked MAGA supporters while implying the shooter’s politics aligned with the right. That’s an asserted narrative, not a verified fact. ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to pull segments that present speculation as fact, and none of that turns on whether his tone was mild.
•
MAGA did, in fact, do their best over the weekend to cast the shooter as anything other than one of them. Comments made in poor taste? Maybe? Not really? No poorer taste than the president saying on Fox & Friends that he "couldn't care less" about promoting unity after the Kirk shooting. Next point, from NYTimes article covering this: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-kimmel.html "The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel’s remarks and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of them." So yes, ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to make this decision, but that decision came at an awfully conspicuous time. So what, nothing to see here?
Not quite as simple as that. The FCC chief threatened ABC just today: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/ If Nexstar was acting in reaction to what Carr said there’s a First Amendment argument to be made. They also require FCC approval for a merger right now, it’s not difficult to see the quid pro quo potential. The argument would at least be heard by a judge.
•
Even if you cite Carr’s interview, First Amendment ‘coercion’ requires a concrete threat backed by government power and a causal link to the station’s decision. A commissioner’s media remarks are not licensing action, and commissioners don’t unilaterally control licenses or mergers. Speculating about future merger review is not evidence of quid pro quo. Unless you can show an actual attempt to condition regulatory outcomes on punishing a viewpoint, this remains a private programming decision, not a constitutional violation.
ABC Pulls Jimmy Kimmel Live from the Air 'Indefinitely' (vulture.com)
•
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482 .
•
All these late-night shows are terrible anyways. Cancel all of them and make room for actual shows.
•
I expected Kimmel to have somehow criticized Kirk, a dubious enough reason to pull the show. But this isn’t even that. Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial, but it’s ludicrous to suggest it’s offensive. That paired with comments criticizing the Dear Leader were enough. This is a new low in corporate cowardice toward Trump bullying. Terrible precedent aside, how could Disney think that capitulating here will result in anything other than more attempts to control their programming in the short term?
•
Is it possible that they wanted to pull the show and this was just the excuse they were looking for?
Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/
•
This effort is being lead by the FCC commissioner threatening to pull licenses so you just need the first panel.
•
Actually not relevant, the pulling came after threats from the FCC: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-monologue-1236373708/
This is not cancel culture. What Jimmy Kimmel did was always out of bounds.
•
What did he do? Quotations and direct sources please.
what did he do here? rate limited when i replied to you so my response below: >We had some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.” Where is the lie?
•
The kid wasn't 'MAGA' though.
Sorry but the fact is a government agency (the FCC) pushed for this. This is a completely different thing than Disney deciding to do it on its own. This is a 1st amendment issue.
•
Which is completely different from when leftists go "we're 'cancelling' this through individual boycott" which a lot of people in this comment section seem to be missing or intentionally misrepresenting.
I'm unsure where we as a society go from here. The left's cancel culture resulted in the firing of private citizens from their jobs, or at least some reprimand. The right's cancel culture is the full weight of the federal government brought down against opposition, in stark violation of the First Amendment; that is, until the Supreme Court can find some new carve-out for why this isn't protected speech. Realistically, how could anyone be okay with the level of power this administration is wielding? I struggle to see a peaceful transfer of this specific set of powers. Unless the assumption is just that the left will always behave "more responsibly."
•
We start by rejecting the cartoon labels of "left" and "right" as if all conservatives or all liberals believe the same things and think the same way. The left/right division is a longstanding technique intended to keep us divided. The reality is that outside of the actual extremists, liberals and conservatives agree on 80% of everything. We can, and need to, start there. We are all Americans and have to realize that just because we may disagree about things (particularly a small percentage of things) doesn't have to mean we're enemies. But, if history offers any lessons, then our path is likely set and we're going to have to push through some nightmarish times before we find a way to be better.
•
It's astonishing how bad the US political apparatus is at making progress even on matters that easily fall within that 80%, though— healthcare reform, childcare, higher education, common sense gun laws, infrastructure investments. All of this stuff should be a slam dunk to implement with broad coalitions no matter who holds which branches, and yet it's all been basically gridlocked for decades, and instead it's never-ending turmoil over meaningless nonsense like who uses what bathrooms.
•
> the assumption is just that the left will always behave "more responsibly." Probably true, which means you're in for a full-blown dictatorship for, oh, 30 years or so before (perhaps) some violent revolution.
[dead]
•
He also sued The Des Moines Register because they released a poll that he did not like [1]. It is sad that people defend this. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/17/us/politics/trump-sues-des-moines-register.html
It's exactly the problem that currying favor with the President is a smart move for businesses.
•
Turns out Ajit Pai was actually a visionary who saw the political writing on the wall. He attempted to dismantle the agency to a point where it couldn't do anything and by not being able to do anything it couldn't be used for evil and wasn't worth corrupting. It was a long con to get the FCC to survive the 2020s. If only we had listened to him. (This is satire)
What's the end game of these right-wing legacy media? The median age of TV viewers is like 65. How do they expect to maintain any viewership once all the elderly people die off? The only thing people watch anymore are live sports and local news, and even those are showing signs of declining.
•
>What's the end game of these right-wing legacy media? Probably to wring a few bucks out as they circle the drain in the same fashion as every other old formerly prestigious brand name.
Keep in mind that Kimmel has been hinting about retiring for a couple years now, his contract was up in the air, the "late night television show" category is evaporating (if there's still even a Tonight Show in 10 years, it'll be purely for nostalgia), and this sends Kimmel out in a blaze of glory. I think it's too easy to sort of anthropomorphize these kinds of conflicts --- Kimmel's show has a large staff, and he's responsible for their livelihoods --- but it wouldn't be totally out of the question that Kimmel steered right into this. There's nothing new about this, though: ABC also took Bill Maher off the air, 20 years ago, almost identical circumstances. Maher wound up at HBO. Kimmel will wind up on a podcast, and, like Conan, probably gain in relevance. Moments later I think some people here might be too young to immediately get the Maher reference, but the point there was: he was forced off the air for political reasons as well.
•
> There's nothing new about this, though Threats from the head of the FCC bandied about on a far-right podcast? Hello?
> There's nothing new about this, though: ABC also took Bill Maher off the air, 20 years ago, almost identical circumstances Leaving aside "similar things have happened before, therefore we shouldn't care about things" nihilist take, this doesn't even appear to be true. I don't remember the firing that well, but looking it up now, ABC didn't renew his contract, which meant he was kept on the air for another 9 months after he made his comments just 6 days after 9/11. This was also several months after the Sinclair Broadcast Group stopped showing the show on their affiliates. So not at all similar to the "snap to attention" apparently here.
•
Please don't put words I didn't say in between quotation marks as if I had said them.
I thought this was because he said the Charlie Kirk shooter was a Republic maga guy, when there was already more than enough info showing he wasn't and anyone in media would know that.
•
He didn't say that, though? He said MAGA was trying to pin him on anyone else. He never asserted anything about the shooter himself.
Believe it or not, alienating politics isn't great for business. Neither is peddling conspiracy theories.
•
Yes, I agree. So let it be business then instead of explicitly making it ideological?
•
Firing someone for making a political statement is business. You never want to alienate half your consumer base. COVID is still fresh enough that people should remember. If you were pro or anti anything 5 years ago it probably hurt you since sentiment swung both ways and both positions look silly in hindsight.
•
Alienate half your audience? That doesn't compute. Kimmel was not watched by that half already.
•
True, I would have fired him years ago.
> Kimmel was straight up spreading misinformation about the shooter. There's been an absolute ton of that going around. Who else has been pulled from the air? What Kimmel said was > “The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”[1] If that's "misinformation", and I'd love to hear how any part of that beside being "one of them" could even be considered so; regardless, it's pretty mild compared to some of the crazy shit we've been hearing lately. [1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/abc-yanks-jimmy-kimmels-show-indefinitely-after-remarks-about-charlie-kirk/
•
> any part of that beside being "one of them" I mean, saying a murderer is "one of them" is a pretty big charge and is 100% the reason. And speculation is one thing, but all evidence points to the murderer not being "one of them" and that evidence was public before Kimmel made his monologue.
The right, has for the past decade or so taken a moral high ground with regards to cancelation. Seems that now they've adopted a "turnaround is fair play" mentality.
•
That's correct, which is unfortunate but I have concluded that almost no one is really in favor of free speech even though we collectively said it was one of our principles. The most detested type of speech is the awful stuff too not just political speech. I would argue very few people are actually in favor of allowing political speech they disagree with that is also awful let alone people who are actually free speech absolutists. I think honestly what we're in need of is a defense of awful speech. Even when the speech has no benefit whatsoever. But not many people want that job or agree with it I would bet.
Why would we defend the rights of someone that refuses to defend ours?
•
Because "their" rights and "our" rights (whoever "us" and "them" happen to be) are one and the same. You wouldn't be defending or attacking "their" rights, you'd be defending or attacking rights in general, and that includes yours.
How about Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? Were they lefties?
•
Same shit as Trump - the self-proclaimed label and the actions are wildly disparate. They - and Hitler - are notable for their totalitarianism. I bear no illusions that folks like Stalin wanted anything more than power.
Is there some way the two sides could reliably arrive at a truce on the issue of cancellation?
•
Someone was just murdered for his opinions so no, that doesn’t seem likely. I think that’s one cancelation too far, and I don’t think there’s going to be any meaningful coming back from it.
Turns out they're not all that big on "free speech" in general! Who knew.
•
Spreading lies about a terrorist, which will result in more violence, needs to be censored. On top of this, Leftists use the system of free speech to rot our system from the inside and then feign shock when there is finally push back. I welcome more networks finally waking up.
[dead]
•
That saying is absolutely true so long as the consequence isn't imposed by the government which has zero right to become involved in what Americans think, like, or say. And there is something seriously wrong when large corporations have to worry about kissing the government's ass because they are awaiting government approval for a business venture. Obviously that's always been a worry, but Trump has taken that to a sickening new level.
•
And they also shared this: https://xkcd.com/1357/
•
Which is describing a very different situation: if ABC decided not to renew Kimmel’s contract, that’s their right as a business. Their listeners didn’t ask for this, the government made an illegal threat to force their business to stop allowing their listeners to have a choice.
•
The FCC Chairman threatened ABC over Kimmel's comments. This is not applicable.
> The right is simply good at PR One of the defining characteristics of the right is not placing any value on logical consistency. Being a hypocrite will not lose you any support with them.
•
Applies to left also.
Video games all through the 90s as well.
•
Satanic Panic before that.
[dead]
•
You were the one arguing “the first amendment doesn’t protect again consequences”. What changed?
It's only cancel culture when the left does it. And this one is infinitely worse than a bunch of internet commenters disagreeing with his comments or private advertisers pulling out. Trump and the FCC directly threatened to pull ABC's license unless they regulated his speech, and ABC caved. The first amendment is dead and people are celebrating on the streets because their favorite political party was the one to kill it.
•
My word! With all due respect that seems like a legitimate 1st Amendment violation! I assume those freedom of speech absolutists, like the NYT Editorial Board, are all over this one!
ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel's show 'indefinitely' after remarks about Charlie Kirk (cnn.com)
•
What causes very active discussions like this to drop off the front page so quickly? I saw another newer post that was probably made because the poster didn't see this post, and a comment made in there linked to this discussion.
•
We really need to stop the cancelling of people for saying controversial, disagreeable and even deeply offensive things. I don't agree with what Kimmel said and I wouldn't have said it myself but it also wasn't outside the bounds of opinions which should be able to be expressed. If you're nodding along in agreement, then you should also know my long-term commitment to consistency in tolerating factually wrong, distasteful, divisive and even hateful speech has also left me in the uncomfortable position of defending (at least in part) the right of Charlie Kirk, JK Rowling and many others I don't agree with to be heard without anyone calling for silencing them. I'm 100% supportive of disagreeing, debating, peacefully protesting, ignoring and even mocking ideas we don't agree with but I draw a hard line at shouting down, deplatforming or canceling them. If you just stopped nodding along, and instead started coming up with reasons why Kimmel should be heard but Charlie Kirk shouldn't, then you might be part of the problem. IMHO, the only truly defensible ethical high-ground on this requires consistency regardless of the person, politics or offense their speech might cause.
•
Allow me to help to try to deradicalize the common person in these threads. Stay with me, as I'm being sincere and not trying to be condescending. Most people do not well-enough conceptualize how civilization works. I know this because of the mistakes that smart people very commonly make when offering politicized opinions. To take them on their word, one would have to categorize them as violent radicals. When the reality is that most are likely making a mistake in thinking or articulation. Civilization is important to properly conceptualize, and not approach haphazardly, as this exercise allows you to control your thoughts and behaviors toward upkeeping civilization rather than having a hand in destroying it. Whether or not you know that's what you are doing. The line for this can elude smart people. If someone thinks that they want to destroy civilization, they don't really. Civilization has traditionally allowed for limited volume of extra-legal political violence like contained riots of a limited type, without falling apart. Civilization has a limited amount of flexibility in that manner. Another form of this limited flexibility is its tolerance for a limited amount of low level crime and financial crime. But it is limited on both counts, referencing developed Nation standards of civilization. Before civilization, inter-tribal warfare was the only reality. The stronger tribe would wipe the weaker tribe's genetics off of the face of the Earth. Apart from commonly raping its women. At some point, about 11,000 years ago in the record and inferred well before that, a hunter gatherer tribe decided to grow people like they do crops. In one place, and by helping to facilitate what they needed to survive. The first town. To make this work, they had to slowly transmute war violence into thesis / antithesis political processes like debate. Over time, and skipping over a lot of political evolution, this morphed into a complex and smoother system. We can still see the violence encapsulated in political processes like voting and debate, because again it's only encased within them and not gone. Civilization encapsulates violence like a resin or sap would. The violence is largely immobile but still visible. What is voting if not a peaceful form of warfare, for example. The difference between civilization and warfare, that is the line, is whether or not we can observe that encapsulated violence while being largely physically non-reactive still maintain politics. Claiming that words are real violence is the first major step to destroying civilization and entering a period of real warfare. The second step is freeing the physical violence from its capsules, sometimes justified by the lie that words are violence. Words are very specifically the opposite option to violence, acknowledging that all human tribal interaction is in a sense violent. The only way that civilization is maintained over ancient warfare is if the lie that politics is real warfare is not advanced by horrible actors. Political processes all encapsulate violence. To maintain civilization, that is where it has to be observed and left. The system has a duty to suppress that violence the second that it leaves its capsule, regardless of the side. And assuming that bad actors aren't working to destroy the system by undermining trust in it via by abusing it to lie about the violence or crime that it will target. With some exceptions that the system has attempted to correct, the system does real violence against individuals usually only when it perceives that people are conducting their own type of real warfare outside of political processes. This is to assure that extra-legal warfare does not replace civilization. If a person robs me, then they are conducting low-level warfare against me. The system seeks to punish that person as result. The criminal code illustrates where the system is authorized to act with violence in order to suppress low level and high level warfare. As long as the primary tribal violence stays encapsulated in political processes, then the system continues. You have democracy when people widely commit to democratic political processes over violence. You have ancient warfare when people cast aside those processes. You have severe delusion when people cast aside those processes but still expect to be protected by the system while continuing to conduct extra-legal physically violent warfare. Extra-legal physical violence is ancient warfare. Extra-legal physical violence becomes more threatening to civilization as it either grows in volume or as it targets more politically significant individuals. Enacting or approving of extra-legal violence makes you a violent extremist militant or a supporter of such, who is outside of the system. This is how the system will see you. To what degree that is true depends on the scale and political impact of the violence. Your party and this country are in a severe crisis. Someone just took their third shot at a highest-level political leader in the span of a little over a year, and this time it killed him. There is no replacing this leader. It severely damages one of the two party's ability to operate. Objectively, it was an act of warfare. The only question is whether or not it was an act of warfare by a single lone nutcase, or an act of warfare that is systemically approved of by voters and institutions. This is what is under analysis as we speak, and it will decide everything. If this were an isolated psycho and not a fully systemic violent radicalization issue for the democrat party, then what we would see is popular level widespread condemnations and self-reflection. Rising to higher level influencers like Kimmel. Instead, Kimmel acts like a propagandist in a violent extremist cell. He gaslights his radicalized followers that one party is continuing to try to assassinate itself. Which should be one of your primary indications that you are horribly brainwashed and radicalized as a group. You need to step back from this. The overall message of the democrats has been "we didn't do it, but he had it coming". Insane nonsense, which no one believes but the radicals. Whatever excuses you try to make about supposed equivalencies, there are none in practice. You are only deluding yourself into a worse state if you think that this can be met with anything other than head-on widespread contrition and reform. The firings are largely centered around trying to punish voices that are spreading violent radicalization messages that are either explicit or tacit assassination approval. Notice that Enterprise scale businesses are joining in this effort, focusing on Left Wing individuals, in this one rare instance in the modern age. They are trying to hard-steer the democrat party away from any more inflammation of this situation. This is because, for once, they understand how dire this situation is. Given the widespread democrat approach to this and apparent widespread radicalization. Kimmel is off of the air because, unfortunately, it took the opposing aggrieved administration to legally threaten abc into taking action. This is very gentle anti-radicalization effort. Whereas to properly deal with and heal this situation, assuming that sliver-edge possibility, what the democrat party and its members need to do is show that they are self-deradicalizing and that this action by deranged individual is not approved of at a structural level in liberal institutions. This includes not giving your party messages that are crazy lies about who the shooter was. Which serves to maintain radicalization and prevent the party from seeing itself clearly and truthfully. I personally stopped listening to democrats after the 2020 riots, because I saw how willing they were to operate with terroristic violence outside of the system and for a horribly corrupt narrative prior to an election. Terrorizing the nation running up to that election over a long span of time. I'm speaking to persistent institutional approval of that violence, which is a different orientation from any other institutional structure in the West. I was right that the nine months of institutionally approved riots in 2020, and the farce of a trial that bookended them in addition to the election, were horrific harbingers. This situation has a direct connection to the permissive violence of the long-standing 2020 riots, the denial of structural complicity for the attempts on the former and soon to be President at the time (with widespread approval also being evident), and the overt widespread lionization of Luigi Mangione. Your party has a massive structural radicalization issue that you need to work as hard as you ever have. As a party, you need to convince your opposition. Right now, the opposite is well in-progress. The continued free-for-all radicalized speech in this forum is insane.
Why has this been flagged?
•
It won't really spur the curious discussion this forum is known and loved for.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Boring Is Good (jenson.org)
•
Since the author is a former Apple UX designer who worked on the Human Interface Guidelines, I hope he shares his thoughts on the recent macOS 26 and iOS updates - especially on Liquid Glass. https://jenson.org/about-scott/
•
I like this article, and I didn't expect to because there's been volumes written about how you should be boring and building things in an interesting way just for the hell of it, is bad (something I don't agree with). Small models doing interesting (boring to the author) use-cases is a fine frontier! I don't agree at all with this though: > "LLMs are not intelligent and they never will be." LLMs already write code better than most humans. The problem is we expect them to one-shot things that a human may spend many hours/days/weeks/months doing. We're lacking coordination for long-term LLM work. The models themselves are probably even more powerful than we realize, we just need to get them to "think" as long as a human would.
•
I think this is, essentially, a wishful take. The biggest barrier to models being able to do more advanced knowledge work is creating appropriately annotated training data, followed by a few specific technical improvements the labs are working on. Models have already nearly maxed out "work on a well-defined puzzle that can be feasibly solved in a few hours" -- stunning! -- and now labs will turn to expanding other dimensions.
I also agree that boring is good, but in our current society you won't get a job for being boring, and when you get a job, it's is guaranteed you are not being paid to solve problems.
•
> but in our current society you won't get a job for being boring, One can argue that every other field of engineering outside of Software Engineering, specializes in making complex things into boring things. We are the unique snowflakes that take business use cases and build castle in the clouds that may or may not actually solve the business problem at hand.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
What's New in C# 14: Null-Conditional Assignments (blog.ivankahl.com)
•
[delayed]
•
I’m having a hard time imagining where this is useful. If I’m trying to assign to a property, but encounter an intermediate null value in the access chain, just skipping the assignment is almost never going to be what I want to do. I’m going to want to initialize that null value.
•
The examples in TFA are pretty illustrative— any time you're looking something up in nested maps such as you'd get from a config yaml or the like, you want "the value of config.section.feature.specific-key or null if any of those along the way don't exist". Implementing this with cascading ifs is gross so it's understandable why it would be a language feature.
More concise? Yes. More readable? I'm less convinced on that one. Some of those edge cases and their effects can get pretty nuanced. I fear this will get overused exactly as the article warns, and I'm going to see bloody questions marks all over codebases. I hope in time the mental overhead to interpret exactly what they're doing will become muscle memory...
•
Swift has had this from the beginning, and it doesn’t seem to have been a problem.
> I don't think it is normal to follow the flow assuming nothing has happened. I think it is for situations where the programmer wants to check a child property but the parent object may be null. If the parent is expected to be null sometimes, the syntax lets the programmer express "try to get this value, but if we can't then move on" without the boilerplate of explicitly checking null (which may be a better pattern in some cases). It's sort of like saying: - Get the value if you can, else move on. We know it might not be there and it's not a big deal. v.s. - The value may not be there, explicitly check and handle it because it should not be null.
•
Your summary is almost correct but replace where you used "get" with "set".
A postmortem of three recent issues (anthropic.com)
•
Which LLM can generate that timeline event graphic from text?
•
This reminds me of the story [1] about Facebook intentionally breaking parts of its Android app for some users (including crashing or disabling functionality), to see how far it could degrade before users stopped using Facebook. According to reports, users did not stop coming back even when the app was broken for hours. A similar thing happened to me when playing some initial version of The Binding of Isaac on Linux, when it was made with Flash. Its performance wasn't the best but I couldn't stop playing. So if people still returns maybe Anthropic has something great going on with Claude Code. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/05/facebook-deliberately-breaking-android-apps?utm_source=chatgpt.com
•
I don't believe for one second that response quality dropped because of an infrastructural change and remained degraded, unnoticed, for weeks. This simply does not pass the sniff test.
Hey now, CC is only 80% vibe coded! https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1khxwjh/claude_code_wrote_80_of_its_own_code_anthropic_dev/
•
80% of Atlassian employees use Jira :)
With all due respect to the Anthropic team, I think the Claude status page[1] warrants an internal code red for quality. There were 50 incidents in July, 40 incidents in August, and 21 so far in September. I have worked in places where we started approaching half these numbers and they always resulted in a hard pivot to focusing on uptime and quality. Despite this I'm still a paying customer because Claude is a fantastic product and I get a lot of value from it. After trying the API it became a no brainer to buy a 20x Max membership. The amount of stuff I've gotten done with Claude has been awesome. The last several weeks have strongly made me question my subscription. I appreciate the openness of this post, but as a customer I'm not happy. I don't trust that these issues are all discovered and resolved yet, especially the load balancing ones. At least anecdotally I notice that around 12 ET (9AM pacific) my Claude Code sessions noticeably drop in quality. Again, I hope the team is able to continue finding and fixing these issues. Even running local models on my own machine at home I run into complicated bugs all the time — I won't pretend these are easy problems, they are difficult to find and fix. [1] https://status.anthropic.com/history
•
What makes it even worse is the status page doesn't capture all smaller incidents. This is the same for all providers. If they actually provided real time graphs of token latency, failed requests, token/s etc I think they'd be pretty horrific. If you trust this OpenRouter data the uptime record of these APIs is... not good to say the least: https://openrouter.ai/openai/gpt-5/uptime It's clear to me that every provider is having enormous scale challenges. Claude Code often slows to a crawl and I have to interrupt it and tell it to try again. This is especially pronounced around 4-6pm UK time (when we have Europe, Eastern US and West Coast US all hammering it). Even today I was getting 503 errors from Gemini AI studio with model overloaded at that time, nothing on status page. I really wonder if it would be worth Claude et al offering a cheaper off peak plan, to try and level out demand. Perhaps the optics of that don't look good though. Edit to add: I think another potential dimension to this is GB200s have been a lot slower to come on stream than probably the industry expected. There's been a lot of defects with various hardware and software components and I suspect the liquid cooling has been difficult to get right (with far more catastrophic failure states!).
> Despite this I'm still a paying customer because Claude is a fantastic product and I get a lot of value from it. Doesn't that say it all? At this point the quality of the AI trumps reliability for the customer (you and me), so even though of course they should (and I'm sure will) focus on it, why would they prioritise reliability over model quality right now?
•
The up-theead complaint is that quality drops and draws a line to reliability. They (Anthropx) have two hard problems to solve.
i don't trust companies anymore because every time there's a worldwide outage they use softspeak like "we're observing elevated amounts of errors for a small subset of users", hours after some CTO approves to change the status page imho there's a big market gap for companies that are truly honest with customers instead of corporate gaslighting
•
I'm with you that a market gap for honesty exists - especially on status pages. Making a better product and being honest I'd class as very-very-hard. I do think an independent service status monitor might be an easier stip-gap and could serve to improve honesty. It's not trivial.
> Anthropic is purposefully degrading things to save money Regardless of whether it’s to save money, it’s purposefully inaccurate: “When Claude generates text, it calculates probabilities for each possible next word, then randomly chooses a sample from this probability distribution.” I think the reason for this is that if you were to always choose the highest probable next word, you may actually always end up with the wrong answer and/or get stuck in a loop. They could sandbag their quality or rate limit, and I know they will rate limit because I’ve seen it. But, this is a race. It’s not like Microsoft being able to take in the money for years because people will keep buying Windows. AI companies can try to offer cheap service to government and college students, but brand loyalty is less important than selecting the smarter AI to help you.
•
> I think the reason for this is that if you were to always choose the highest probable next word, you may actually always end up with the wrong answer and/or get stuck in a loop. No, it's just the definition of sampling at non-zero temperature. You can see T=0 to always get the most likely token. Temperature trades of consistency for variety. You can set T to zero in the API, I assume the defaults for Claude code and their chat are nonzero.
Wow. Sneaky. They do not even state the rate of impact for the XLA bug afaik, which affected everyone, not just claude code users, very vague. Interesting. Claude code made almost half a billion so far[1] (>500m in ARR and its like 9 months old) , and 30% of all users have been impacted at least once, just from the first routing bug. Scary stuff. Their post mortem is basically "evaluations are hard, we relied on vibe checking, now we are going to have even more frequent vibe checking". I believe it was indeed unintentional, but in the future where investor's money wont come down from the skies, serving distilled models will be very tempting. And you can not be liable to any SLA currently, it's just vibes. I wonder how enterprise vendors are going to deal with this going forward, you cannot just degrade quality without client or vendor even being able to really prove it. [1][ https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-raises-series-f-at-usd183b-post-money-valuation ]
•
They likely don't want to say how much of their inference comes from GCP vs. AWS.
WASM 3.0 Completed (webassembly.org)
•
This is so exciting! Been waiting for this for years, very interested to see what people can do with this
Hot take alert > When is WASM finally going to be able to touch the DOM? Coming from a web background, and having transitioned to games / realtime 3D applications... Fuck the DOM dude. The idea that programming your UI via not one but TWO DSLs, and a scripting language, is utter madness. In principal, it might sound good (something something separation of concerns, or whatever-the-fuck), but in reality you always end up with this tightly coupled garbage fire split across a pile of different files and languages. This is not the way. We need to build better native UI libraries that just open up a WebGL context and draw shit to that. DearIMGUI can probably already do like 85% of what modern webapps do. Anyways .. /rant
•
> DearIMGUI can probably already do like 85% of what modern webapps do I’m with you. Main blocker I’ve seen to “just use ImGui for everything” (which I’d love to adopt), is if I run ImGui in WASM the keyboard doesn’t open on mobile. This seems possible in theory because egui does it. Even though running ImGui on mobile via WASM isn’t the primary use case, inevitably the boss or someone is going to need to “just do a quick thing” and won’t be able to on mobile, and this seems to be a hard ceiling with no real escape hatch or workaround. One of those scenarios where, if we have to use a totally different implementation (React or whatever) to handle this 1% edge case, we might as well just use that for the other 99%.
getting rid of javascript entirely means to be able to manipulate the DOM without writing any javascript code. not to remove javascript from the browser. javascript will still be there if you want to use it.
•
Most of the time your toolchain provides a shim so you don’t need to write JS anyway. What’s the difference?
I guess I’m just a crusty ol’ greybeard C++ developer, but it seems like a video editor is out of place in a document browser. There’s a perfectly good native operating system that nobody uses any more. If we think we need a more thoroughly virtualized machine than traditional operating system processes give us (which I think is obvious), then we should be honest and build a virtualization abstraction that is actually what we want, rather than converting a document reader into a video editor…
•
I a 64yo fart. Started programming with machine codes. Native is my bread and butter. Still have no problems and am using browser as a deployment platform for some type of applications. Almost each thing has it's own use.
•
Think of it like emacs. Browsers are perfectly good operating systems just needing a better way to view the web.
•
That's too true to be funny!
•
The browser removes the friction of needing to install specialized software locally, which is HUGE when you want people to actually use your software. Figma would have been dead in the water if it wasn't stupidly simple to share a design via a URL to anyone with a computer and an internet connection.
Seriously though, I’ve been wondering for a while whether I could build a GCC for x86-64 that would have 32-bit (low 4G) pointers (and no REX prefixes) by default and full 64-bit ones with __far or something. (In this episode of Everything Old Is New Again: the Very Large Memory API[1] from Windows NT for Alpha.) [1] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20070801-00/?p=25763
•
6502 zero page instruction vibes.
DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC (codeforces.com)
Firstly, automobiles are really impressive. Second, with that out the way, these cars are not playing the same game as horses… first, and quite obviously they have massive amounts of horsepower, which is kind of like giving a team of horses… many more horses. But also cars have an absolutely massive fuel capacity. Petrol is such an efficient store of chemical energy compared to hay and cars can store gallons of it. I think if you give my horse the ability of 300 horses and fed it pure gasoline, I would be kind of embarrassed if it wasn’t able to win a horse race.
•
Comparing power with reasoning does not make any sense at all. Humans have surpassed their own strength since the invention of the lever thousands of years ago. Since then, it has been a matter of finding power sources millions of times greater such as nuclear energy
Yeah man, and it would be wild to publish an article titled "Ford Mustang and Honda Civic win gold in the 100 meter dash at the Olympics" if what happened was the companies drove their cars 100 meters and tweeted that they did it faster than the Olympians had run. Actually that's too generous, because the humans are given a time limit in ICPC, and there's no clear mapping to say how the LLM's compute should be limited to make a comparison. It IS an interesting result to see how models can do on these tests - and it's also a garbage headline.
•
> what happened was the companies drove their cars 100 meters and tweeted that they did it faster than the Olympians had run That would be indeed an interesting race around the time cars were invented. Today that would be silly, since everyone knows what cars are capable of, but back then one can imagine a lot more skepticism. Just as there is a ton of skepticism today of what LLMs can achieve. A competition like this clearly demonstrates where the tech is, and what is possible. > there's no clear mapping to say how the LLM's compute should be limited to make a comparison There is a very clear mapping of course. You give the same wall clock time to the computer you gave to the humans. Because what it is showing is that the computer can do the same thing a human can under the same conditions. With your analogy here they are showing that there is such a thing as a car and it can travel 100 meters. Once it is a foregone conclusion that an LLM can solve the ICPC problems and that question has been sufficiently driven home to everyone who cares we can ask further ones. Like “how much faster can it solve the problems compared to the best humans” or “how much energy it consumes while solving them”? It sounds like you went beyond the first question and already asking these follow up questions.
•
Cars going faster than humans or horses isn't very interesting these days, but it was 100+ years ago when cars were first coming on the scene. We are at that point now with AI, so a more fitting headline analogy would be "In a world first, automobile finishes with gold-winning time in horse race". Headlines like those were a sign that cars would eventually replace horses in most use-cases, so the fact that we could be in the the same place now with AI and humans is a big deal.
I think your analogy is interesting but it falls apart because “moving fast” is not something we consider uniquely human, but “solving hard abstract problems” is
•
Not my analogy, parent is the one who brought up automobiles. Maybe that's who you meant to reply to. I'm talking about the headline saying they "won gold" at a competition they didn't, and couldn't, compete in.
The ICPC has plenty of elite competitive programmers. It's an activity that "peaks" in importance around college, and not many keep training a lot after participating. Every year there are multiple "Legendary Grandmasters" in the competition. That's >3000 Elo in Codeforces. I'd estimate it takes a similar level of skill/effort as becoming a Chess Grandmaster. And even those that aren't at that level are very competent at it. The average ICPC participant is likely "smarter" than the average MIT/Harvard CS student for some reasonable measure of "smarter".
•
I didn't realize - didn't mean to disparage anyone.
These vigorously held and loudly proclaimed opinions don't matter. Don't waste the mental energy. They're more interested in performative ignorance and argument than anything productive. It's somewhere between trying to engage Luddites during the industrial revolution and having a reasonable discussion with /pol/ . They'd rather cling to what they know than embrace change, or get in rhetorical zingers, and nothing will change that except a collision with reality.
•
Counterpoint: in my consulting role, I've directly seen well over a billion dollars in failed AI deployments in enterprise environments. They're good at solving narrow problems, but fall apart in problem spaces exceeding roughly thirty concurrent decision points. Just today I got involved in a client's data migration where the agent (Claude) processed test data instead of the intended data identified in the prompt. It went so far as to rename the test files to match the actual source data files and proceed from there, signalling the all clear as it did. It wasn't caught until that customer, in a workshop said, and I quote "This isn't our fucking data".
Anthropic irks White House with limits on models’ use (semafor.com)
The fact of being elected is not relevant to the question, and neither is the nominal existence of constitutional checks. Extrajudicial murder of alleged criminals, abuse of criminal prosecution to target political enemies, armed thugs yanking innocent people out of their cars, steamrolling firms and universities into administration-favorable policy changes and extracting hundreds of millions of dollars — and that's just the first few things I could think of. There are dozens of examples. It is not inflammatory to describe simple reality.
•
New ones every hour! TV shows preemptively taken off the air in _anticipation_ of state backlash.
I should think that it was very obvious that America does not have a dictatorial government; this is hyperbole.
•
It's very obvious that America has a dictatorial government, and I'm baffled why you would deny this. The dictator-in-chief has argued explicitly and repeatedly that the written laws of the land don't constrain him; he can shut down departments Congress ordered him to run, levy taxes they didn't authorize, and overrule or rewrite any statute he feels isn't correct. He seized 10% of Intel Corporation without even a fig leaf of legal basis! Perhaps you're confused that the normal system of laws is still operating? That's just the nature of dictatorship in a large country. The dictator only has so much time in the day, and if he has to delegate anyway he might as well use the preexisting courts and civil servants. He just has to put supervisors on top who can credibly threaten to invoke his wrath if people step too far out of line.
That is a plainly absurd standard for deciding what is dictatorial rule.
•
You're being plainly absurd by splitting hairs over a dangerous destruction of the rule of law, complete breakdown of checks and balances, and an executive that is behaving like it is both above the law, and will never lose power.
 Top