Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | moolcool's commentslogin

"If you’re so smart, why aren’t you kind?"

Because people take advantage of your kindness and leave you feeling used.

I think this is a cynical take-- you can be kind without being a doormat.

It's a very difficult balance to strike imo. People do take niceness and humor as signs that you're not quite as "professional". Of course, other people don't make this mistake, but we don't live in a vacuum - sometimes the jellybrains have control over our promotions.

It requires ones own mind to fell “taken advantage of” - if one is smart enough to be kind, one most remember to be kind to oneself as well, and not care about what the sad critters gets from the leftovers.

Stoicism promote exactly this virtue of understanding that you are in control of interpreting your own feelings.


It's the sad reality of the society we live in. Money matters the most. Nothing else.

Kind people always get taken advantage of at work. Others take credit and then left abandoned once there's no more value to the company. I guess that's just capitalism.


You need to move into a different industry/society. These things are not ubiquitous.

Agreed. We call those people assholes. We try our best to avoid hiring those people and we weed them out of our company as fast as possible if they're discovered. We also try to have as flat a structure as possible so nobody is taking credit for anyone else's work and ideally many of us are working together so we all share the glory or frustration when something goes well or not.

When Facebook releases an AI Model for free: "Based Facebook. Zuckerberg is a genius visionary"

When Facebook does something unforgivable: "It's a systemic problem. Zuck is just a smol bean"


Zuck can take his model onto his private island and talk to it instead of trying to be a normal human being.

Don't conflate me with the personality worshippers on HN, I'm not one of them, even though it seems like it to you because I also post here. You won't find a single instance of me glazing tech leaders.


What's with this reductionist logic? Nothing is ever 100% good or 100% evil, everything is on a spectrum.

So just because Zuck does some good stuff for the tech world, doesn't mean he's work isn't a net negative to society.


> doesn't mean he's work isn't a net negative to society

Oh he absolutely is.

I'm just saying that it's common in this community to attribute the achievements of big companies to leadership (E.g. the mythology of Steve Jobs), but dismiss all the evil stuff to "systemic issues".


GPT-5 trained heavily on the script for Napoleon Dynamite

> But manual typing is rare

It's absolutely not rare. I can't tell you how many times I sat in the back of a classroom, squinting at a whiteboard, trying to type copy a URL that looked like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/technology/silicon-chips-...


I think more important than URL shorteners is URL structure. It should work like a directory, where you can intuitively guess what subdirectories there are.

This NYT link is actually pretty good. year/month/day/category/title is pretty nice. The query parameter ruins it, but that's kind of unavoidable if you want a reproducible link with extra data. Usually you can omit query parameters and the URL should still work.


That matters too, but those solve different problems.

Not saying you're wrong, just wondering if it was an option to take a picture of the screen using your phone. In my experience, that's how students tend to capture such info when it isn't provided to them electronically.

"Rare" doesn't mean "non-existent". Some people (such as yourself) might indeed need to type links in manually on a regular basis, but for most people it is quite rare.

NASA and SpaceX aren't competitors.

NASA's mission statement is "explore the unknown in air and space, innovate for the benefit of humanity, and inspire the world through discovery".

SpaceX is a p̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶d̶e̶d̶ privately held company whose mission is to increase shareholder value.


Specifically NASA is an exploration and science mission while SpaceX is a lift and transit provider for organizations like NASA. Historically NASA did their own lift and transit because no one else could and they seeded and researched the capabilities that SpaceX and other private ventures do today. This is a fine arrangement because commoditizing delta V is not exploration and science, it’s the means to it.

I’d note SpaceX is by far the most successful but by far not the only player in that space.

The brain drain and funding attack is on non military goals of NASA as well as on college and specifically graduate level people in the United States because they don’t ideologically align to the president. It’s a cultural revolution America style.


SpaceX's entire mission is to get people to Mars en masse. They revolutionized spaceflight precisely as a part of that mission, not as an ends in and of itself. For instance the Polaris Dawn mission [1] sent humans further into space than we've been since the Apollo Program, intentionally traversed the Van Allen radiation belt, and carried out the first commercial spacewalk, executed experiments and so forth. And all of this was carried out by SpaceX.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_Dawn


That’s Elon Musks goal, but it’s not what they do. They lift and transport. Even the goal of lifting and transporting to mars is lift and transport. You could argue it’s all means to and end, but they’ve not done the end and they have only ever done the means and will continue to do so - making it a lift and transport company :-)


SpaceX is not publicly traded


SpaceX’s mission is very explicitly not shareholder aligned, which is why Musk explicitly said he would never take it public or sell his majority stake.

The mission is mars and the money making endeavors (starlink) are to bring in the cash to do that.


> The mission is mars

It's hard to believe that by now Musk still hasn't realized what a ridiculous idea this is.

That realization could explain his weird pivot into e.g. buying Twitter and far-right politics. A midlife crisis triggered by discovering that his childhood dream was just a fantasy.


> It's hard to believe that by now Musk still hasn't realized what a ridiculous idea this is.

Maybe one day Elon Musk will understand space as well as you do.


Even if he were sincere, sacrificing NASA because it's mission has some overlap with the stated goal of a billionaire is ridiculous.


That’s unrelated to what I’m saying. My point is that spacex isn’t driven by shareholders


Surprised and delighted to see a Meathead post on hackernews.


What about deporting a student who is in the country legally as punishment writing an op-ed you don't like?


as a guest that's the deal in most countries.


Actually, that's NOT the deal in most Western democracies. In countries with free speech protections, writing an op-ed as a legal resident is following the rules, not breaking them.

Yes, even Western democracies sometimes fail at this - through mistakes, bad laws, or moments of fear. That's precisely why we need to call it out when it happens, not shrug and normalize it.

Rights are inherent to all people. When any government - Western or otherwise - punishes peaceful political expression, they're violating fundamental human rights.

'That's just how it is' is how rights erode. We should aspire to strengthen protections for everyone, not excuse their violation by pointing to other failures.


> that's the deal in most countries

Most countries aren’t America.


So.. America can't protect American interests when deciding who should be in the country? If I went to Mexico and started protesting I would fully expect Mexico to send me home. And I'd support their right to do so.


This comparison actually undermines the argument. Mexico's constitution allows non-citizens to participate in peaceful protests generally - it only restricts participation in 'political affairs of the country' specifically (Article 9)[1]. So even Mexico, with significantly weaker democratic institutions, is more permissive than the scenario being described. Canada, meanwhile, guarantees peaceful assembly for everyone (Charter Section 2(c))[2]. The premise that other democracies would automatically deport protesters simply doesn't hold up.

[1] https://www.constitucionpolitica.mx/titulo-1-garantias-indiv...

[2] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html under article 2(c)


You don't get to decide what constitutes "American interests." We all do, and our current consensus is encoded in the First Amendment which states plainly that the government cannot take action against people (not constrained to US citizens*) on the basis of their speech.

You can change the Constitution if you don't like it!


ICE is already brutally arresting vacationers in the US on valid tourist visas, accusing them of being "illegals" simply for being brown. This is why no one from the rest of the world wants to vacation, work, or live in America anymore.


> ICE is already brutally arresting vacationers in the US on valid tourist visas, accusing them of being "illegals" simply for being brown.

Can you back that up with evidence? Just because someone claims that they were denied entry / detained / deported due to skin color doesn't mean that was the case. Many such cases where media has jumped on to claims that turned out to be false.

> This is why no one from the rest of the world wants to vacation, work, or live in America anymore.

Absolutely false, only those who let them be manipulated by scare media think there is actually a measurable risk for coming to the US legally.


> Can you back that up with evidence?

I'm not them, but there have been reports of tourists locked up for weeks.

https://apnews.com/article/border-tourists-german-canadian-d...


> So.. America can't protect American interests when deciding who should be in the country?

Free speech is (was?) an American interest. Further, the country contains multitudes of different, opposing interests, not just those of the current regime.

For all its grandstanding over “cancel culture” this regime’s unusually thin skin when it comes to opposing views would be laughable, were it not so dangerous and abusive.


That doesn’t make a lot of sense when you apply it.

If a legal immigrant in the US starts recruiting for ISIS (entirely legal behavior), don’t you want the ability to remove them? Generally countries don’t want immigrants who support people who want that countries destruction.


> If a legal immigrant in the US starts recruiting for ISIS (entirely legal behavior)

Recruiting for a terrorist organisation is textbook lending of material support. Very illegal.


It's not.

Providing material support is, which is a gray area when it comes to recruitment as recruitment doesn't have to be explicit.

What if I post information that indirectly support terrorist groups such as justifying their actions? What if I post information that supports groups indirectly connected with terrorist groups (say a fund raising arm the US government hasn't listed as a terrorist group)?

None of those things are illegal.

Shouldn't the US government, well any government for that matter, be able to deny such people entry?

As they say "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". It wasn't intended to be a mechanism by which foreigners can destroy the country itself.


> Providing material support is, which is a gray area when it comes to recruitment

It’s absolutely not a grey area, what source do you have that’s claiming this?

> What if I post information that indirectly support terrorist groups such as justifying their actions?

That’s fine. That’s speech. Terrorist or freedom fighter is like mandatory freshman dorm banter.

> What if I post information that supports groups indirectly connected with terrorist groups (say a fund raising arm the US government hasn't listed as a terrorist group)?

If it links to a listed group you’re fucked. Even if you didn’t know about the connection.

Grey areas resolve differently depending on context. When it comes to terrorism, we tend to be fine being more brutal. Debating Hamas is fine. Waving their flag is questionable, potentially fair grounds to deny visa entry (or at least do a very deep dive into whether actual support occurred). Encouraging folks to join Hamas, directly or indirectly, should result in immediate detention and incapacitation.


> It’s absolutely not a grey area, what source do you have that’s claiming this?

US legal code? You made the claim recruiting is illegal, find me the law that says so.

> That’s fine. That’s speech.

So you’d be fine with a neo-Nazi being admitted to the US? Or someone actively supporting ISIS in their speech?

And you never really responded to my point - the Constitution doesn’t require the US admit people actively working to destroy the US.


> America can't protect American interests when deciding who should be in the country?

America shouldn’t be sending masked goons into courthouses to disappear people.

I was actually supportive of Trump’s illegal immigrant pitch at the get go. But then he totally ignored the gangs, going after tax-paying migrants because Miller found them easier to round up. And then he started deporting Americans.

This isn’t even a problem of evil. It’s one of incompetence. We have a bunch of nutwads in masks wearing camo doing whatever they can to hit numbers. This is bureaucratic failure on steroids.

> I'd support their right to do so

Honestly, I’m fine with this. I am also fine with someone publishing this app. (We frankly need a database of ICE agents who have broken the law so they can be dealt with down the road.)


Gangs are being deported, if they are here illegally. US citizens are not being deported.


Unfortunately, that is not correct:

> Three young children who are US citizens - including one with cancer - were deported to Honduras alongside their mothers last week, according to advocacy groups and the families' lawyers.

> One of the children is a four-year-old with Stage 4 cancer who was sent without medication, a lawyer for the child's family said. [0]

0: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo


> Gangs are being deported

Lots of evidence showing the hard police work of pursuing gangs is being substituted for the easier task of deporting tax-paying migrants. I don’t have any particular issue with the latter. But it’s incorrect to claim this administration is pursuing gangs; its deals with Bukele have essentially freed multiple members of MS13’s leadership.


Do you like freedom or not?


What makes you say that?


America argues it is their right to assemble who they want in their borders.


Not America. The current administration and a select set of piss poor citizens


> I am totally against Python tooling being written in a language other than Python

I will be out enjoying the sunshine while you are waiting for your Pylint execution to finish


Linting is the new "compiling!"


Linting and type checking are very CPU intensive tasks so I would excuse anyone implementing those types of tools in $LANG where using all CPU juice matters.

I can't help but think uv is fast not because it's written in Rust but because it's a fast reimplementation. Dependency solving in the average Python project is hardly computationally expensive, it's just downloading and unpacking packages with a "global" package cache. I don't see why uv couldn't have been implemented in Python and be 95% as fast.

Edit: Except implementing uv in Python requires shipping a Python interpreter kinda defeating some of it's purpose of being a package manager able to install Python as well.


Nope, this is totally an area where using Rust makes sense and is just _fast_. The fact that Rust has concurrency primitives that are easy to use helps tons too.


I still don't get it, uv is checking if dependencies exist on disk, if they do it creates a link from the cache to your environment, it's a stat syscall and a hardlink syscall in the best of worlds (after solving dependency versions but that should already be done in a lockfile).

Interpreter startup time is hardly significant once in one invocation to set up your environment.

What makes Rust faster for downloading and unpacking dependencies. Considering how slow pip is and how fast uv is (100s of X) it seems naive to attribute it to the language.


You also have to factor in startup time and concurrency. Caching an SAT solvers can't get python to 95% of uv.


> But lately I've been wondering if the tools available to us now are the key to bringing back what we miss about the old internet.

One of the best things about the old internet was Flash Player. It was an extremely low barrier-to-entry way for creators (especially young creators) to make games and animation which could be played in-browser on extremely low-power hardware. To this day, there's nothing which comes close to filling the vacuum.


> Until in becomes unbearable perhaps

Until?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: