I find it very strange that so many people are more exercised by the small crime of Snowden releasing this information than by the large crime of the federal government spying on us all.

And delighted that he has a stable career that isn't threatened by the coming AI apocalypse.

> Also the whole thing moved incredibly quickly; it went from new organization to banned almost immediately.

Are you sure? They were founded in 2020.

You can argue that destroying property may be legitimate protest, but that is not all they did. In 2024 they used sledgehammers to destroy machinery in an Elbit factory. Again, arguably legitimate protest. But then they attacked police officers and security guards who came to investigate with those same sledgehammers. That is in no way legitimate.

If the government was going to proscribe them for anything it should have been for that. The RAF thing was indeed bullshit.

Anyway, it seems to me that to simultaneously believe that

a) telling a group of people that they can't use a particular name is an unacceptable attack on our freedoms yet

b) physically attacking people with sledgehammers is OK

requires quite some mental gymnastics.

WTF? How do you get from Americans to black people?

There is a trend here of people imagining what you say and then criticizing you for it.

I think this is what they meant by "Paris is unrecognizable from his youth".

Try reading what it says and not what you imagine it to say.

Does it need a rule? These comments already get heavily down-voted. People who can't take a hint aren't going to read the rules.

If HN mods think the rule should be applied whatever the community thinks (for now), then yes, it needs a rule.

As I see it, down-voting is an expression of the community posture, rules are an expression of the "space" posture. It's up to the space to determine if there is something relevant enough to include it in the rules.

And again, as I see it, community should also have a way to at least suggest modifications of the rules.

I agree with you in "People who can't take a hint aren't going to read the rules". But as they say: "Ignorance of the law does not exempt one from compliance."

Again: there already is a rule against this.

Hi! Yup, I didn't know it and your comment talking about this (completely agree btw) was made later, so sorry if it felt repetitive to you but thanks for coming here to let us know :)

This is my view.

I tend to dislike these type of posts but a properly designed and functioning vote mechanism should take care of it.

If not, it is the voting mechanism that should be tuned - not new rules.

> These comments already get heavily down-voted.

Can't find the link right now (cause why would i save a thread like that..) but I've seen more than once situations where people get defensive of others that post AI slop comments. Both times it was people in YC companies that have personal interest related to AI. Both times it looked like a person defending sockpuppets.

I think it helps having guidelines and not relying on user sentiment alone. When I first joined HN I read the guidelines and it did make me alter my comments a bit. Hoping everyone who joins goes back to review the up/down votes on their comments and then take away the right lesson with limited information as to why those votes were received seems like wishful thinking. For those who do question why they keep getting downvoted, it might lead them to check the guidelines and finding the right supporting information would be useful.

A lot of the guidelines are about avoiding comments that aren’t interesting. A copy/paste from an LLM isn’t interesting.

HN tends to self-regulate pretty well

I'm veering towards this being the answer. People downvote the superfluous "I don't have any particular thoughts on this, but here's what a chatbot has to say" comments all the time. But also, there are a lot of discussions around AI on HN, and in some of those cases posting verbatim responses from current generation chatbots is a pretty good indication of they can give accurate responses when posed problems of this type or they still make these mistakes or this is what happens when there's too much RHLF or a silly prompt...

It literally is the employee's fault but they are not legally liable for it.

An employee is generally only liable if they purposefully sabotage their employer's business. So a mistake doesn't cut it.

And that's effectively an impossibly high bar in the typical mundane cases though.

The OS did ship with bezier vector font support. AFAIK it was the first GUI to do so.

P.S. I should probably mention that there wasn't room in the ROM for the vector fonts; these needed to be loaded from some other medium.

So restrict the obligation to companies.

On what justification? You just want to take their stuff, because?

People shouldn’t lose their rights to what they own, just because they do so through a company.

I do think reasonable taxation and regulation is justifiable but on the understanding that it is an imposition. There is a give and take when it comes to rights and obligations, but this seems like overreach.

Oats too.

For anyone else who can't see the article:

> University of Virginia professor Ken Ono, one of the world's most prominent mathematicians, joins AI startup Axiom Math, which is building an “AI mathematician”

Gift article: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/math-ken-ono-carina-hong-axiom-s...

May I ask how you did this?

I’m a subscriber.