Thanks for mentioning this. I installed claude-mem today and it’s already come in handy. Pretty neat how it can go get individual prompts and replies from previous sessions without consuming a lot of tokens. And I finally have some visibility into what my subagents are doing thanks for the real time feed web dashboard.
looking at the results, it seems like flash should be the default now when using Gemini? the difference between flash thinking and pro thinking is not noticeable anymore, not to mention the speed increase from flash! The only noticeable one is MRCR (long context) benchmark which tbh I also found it to be pretty bad in gemini 3 preview since launching
this is very impressive! as much as I love Claude though, is it just me or their limit is much lower compared to others (Gemini and GPT)? At the moment I'm subscribed to Google One AI ($20) which gives me the most value with the 2tb google drive and Cursor ($20). I've subscribed to GPT and Claude as well in the past, I find that I was hitting the limit much faster in Claude compared to all the others, it made me reluctant to subscribe again. from the blog post it seems like they've been prioritising the Max users most of the time?
I am using cloudflare as back-end for my site (workers) but have disabled all their other offerings. I was affected for a short while but seems to be less affected than other people.
as much as I love Wikipedia and I think we need it, I just realise that I haven't opened Wikipedia in the past few months. My default workflow is now replaced to Option + Space and ask gpt questions.
>In one interview with Gaines on Real America’s Voice, Kirk railed against “the decline of American men” and blamed it for transgender equality. Then he added that people should have “just took care of” transgender people “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s."
Or take some from his last words
>At about 12:20, he is asked by a member of the crowd: "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?"
>He replies: "Too many."
Do you think he would have said the same when someone would have asked the same question about gun owners or would have said something like:
"I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
He recommend the one about Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded
So how did we handle that in the 50s and 60s opposed to the 70s, 80s and 90s, the times when being anything else than being straight slowly wasn't considered a crime anymore?
Given he preceded that with "I blame the decline of American men" and followed it with "as testosterone rates go down and men start acting like women", it seems that in his worldview, the decline of masculinity started in the 70s. A high school swimming coach from the 1950s or 60s likely wouldn't have permitted a biological male in the women's locker room.
Kirk didn't say "I miss everything about the 50s-60s". He did none of those things, nor did he encourage them. Suggesting otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and the spread of such misinformation may have partly contributed to creating the deranged individual who thought he deserved to be murdered.
He doesn't need to say it, but for many of his fans the so not so good parts (if you're non white or female) resonate. You do know what a dog whistle is?
And talking about the spread of misinformation, Kirk spread the lie of the stolen election that led to the January 6 riots and caused multiple deaths.
BTW maybe you can comment under some of the other commenters where I try to explain than words aren just words and can cause damage, you seem to have the same opinion, whereby my reach is far below Kirk's so I think I have a much lower risk of creating a deranged individual than people like Kirk have.
Trump or Kirk spreading misinformation is not an excuse for yourself spreading misinformation. No matter his opinions, Kirk was a peaceful, non-violent person.
Show one who got influenced by me. That would be really interesting.
That I spread misinformation has to be proven.
He referenced the 50s and 60s on purpose, the good old times and he knows his peers and what the associate with that time period. So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive. Given all what he said there is a clear subtext you try to ignore.
Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.
> So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive.
I disagree - you're extrapolating from very little. If you take into consideration his whole life and the context of the conversation, it's very clear that he did not believe in violence and did not advocate it.
Does that look like someone who wishes violence against gay or trans people? Be real.
>You're both bad guys for spreading misinformation.
>Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.
Interesting change. Don't forget my reach and his.
And I never spread the lie about the Great Replacement.
The first clip sounds more like don't tell than real acceptance and it's quite ironic that accoring to this clip he says people aren't defined by their sexuality but every time a homosexual couple is show in a kids movie right wingers whine because now they have to talk about anal sex with their kids. What they don't have, like you don't have to explain hetero sex if a hetero couple is shown. The right is obsessed with the sexuality of gays. And calling it a lifestyle, that's one of the biggest misinformations often used to blame the victims of anti-gay violence for their bad "choice".
Maybe watch this clip where he quotes Leviticus 18
Sure he had typical right wing and religious views, but did not advocate violence.
Again that clip you linked was just him pointing out the irony of using Bible verses to support homosexuality while ignoring other very violent verses towards them. He was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals.
FWIW, I disagree with Kirk on probably most topics (e.g. guns, religion, abortion, homosexuality being a bad "lifestyle") so there's no need to debate me.
The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning.
I'm glad you wrote "was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals", because I never claimed that and it seems you realize that there could be an non literal advocation.
His work definetly doesn't justify his murder, it would be ironic if I think so because I'm against the death penalty, but he helped create the battlefield he now died on.
I guess the only reason why the current murderers are more likely from the left side of the political spectrum is because the right-wingers are in power. They can send the military or ICE to get rid of their opponents. If that changes we will see more right wing murderers.
I find it interesting how he tries to dismiss the core message of Christianity with a reference to the old testament.
Seems right wingers know the old testament pretty well but rarely quote the new one and even rarer live by it. It's often that authoritarian god, you know, the one who gave us the rainbow after multiple genocide and who said later on
>Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Let's see those Christian values in action when they catch the shooter.
You're right, but this man did not share your opinion.
When Nancy Pelosi and her husband were targets of political violence, Charlie Kirk's response was to suggest that whomever bails the attacker out would be a national hero. [1]
To her credit, her response to the attack on him is much more dignified than his was.
-----
[1]
"Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy (David DePape) out..." - Charlie Kirk
I just listened to the clip. The remark was made jokingly, though arguably in poor taste. Immediately afterward he described the attack as "awful" and "not right," and then pivoted into a rant about how it's too easy to bail out suspects.
That’s one way to frame it. A cynical and disingenuous one.
He presented an alternative to the indoctrination students often receive today at college campuses and through the media. He gave students a microphone and a chance to defend their views.
If presenting an alternative political philosophy causes someone to become enraged (or worse), we’re in a really bad state.
We need to stop dismissing these comments and take them seriously. False claims like this are defamation, libel, and are inciting violence. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure these are all crimes that we’ve just been shrugging off. These are the results.
If we want freedom of speech we need our speech to mean something and use it to seek the truth in good faith.
This is especially true for those holding political office or in the media. They should be held to a higher standard, as they are the example for the people.
Dude, you need to take a pause and read up on this. It’s your civic duty to be informed and you are so very wrong about everything here.
Inciting violence is very different from defamation/libel.
No, lawmakers making false statements is not defamatory nor libelous. In fact, they have complete immunity while on the debate floor.
And defamation/libel have to be knowable false statements of fact which created demonstrable damage. Opinions can’t be defamatory. True statements can’t be defamatory. When Trump’s Chief of Staff, General Kelly, calls Trump a fascist and lists the definition of fascism and saying that he meets each one, that’s neither false nor inciting violence.
Maybe check your priors to see if you are more mad because people aren’t being prosecuted, or because what they are saying has truth to it.
Name media calling for the death of republicans or republican commentators.
I can name someone who called Trump a NAZI, JD Vance.
Go look at Twitter right now, it’s NYE for republicans. They’ve convinced themselves, sans evidence, that this was a leftist shooter. There are literally hundreds of thousands of posts foaming at the mouth that they can now hunt liberals and that the civil war has started. You’re doing the thing you claim to hate and frankly it’s disgusting.
'I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage.' - Charlie Kirk
Because he would then hand you a mic to challenge his point. In a healthy debate. And you connected your own dots on the second point to satisfy your sick sense of justice.
Wow what an upstanding guy. He would hand us the mic. For what? To create a thumbnail on YouTube on how you pre-determinately got "owned" before you even received it?
Isn't that what happened in 1994? We debated if what was happening in Rwanda was genocide. We debated if there was Genocide in Bosnia between 1992-1995. And then debate what to do about it if we do recognize it as genocide
How can a civil exchange of ideas not be healthy? Agreement is not a requisite to the definition. If such a debate feels unhealthy to you, I’m not sure what to say.
You would probably get more out of debating with an LLM. Let's have an LLM with a mic on every campus for these "healthy" debates that are progressing humanity.
Or maybe we can fine-tune an LLM with all his dialogue that has been recorded.
I guarantee in the latter case no one would care, because the showmanship aspect would be gone, which is what it really was about. Entertainment.
What's unhealthy and double-standard-y about this is, people like Kirk in many quarters on the right have been talking about taking away constitutional rights like second amendment, maybe even first, for transgender people.
> Because his abhorrent ideas have already been rejected by civil society.
I hate to break it to you, but judging by the outcome of last year's election, this statement is provably false.
This means his opponents' ideas are by-and-large rejected by civil society, and the amazing irony is, he invited those ideas to be tested out in the open. Kirk gave a platform to ideas he and his audience abhor.
If someone's views are "too egregious" to be tested openly, it's almost always the case that the person suggesting this knows their own views wouldn't hold up. It's a tell that they know they've lost the argument, before it even happened. Calls for censorship and deplatforming are the key tell for how feeble a person is.
If their ideals are so great, why can't they survive under scrutiny?
I would retort that a sizable fraction of society isn't civil, the gleefully malevolent who long to punish minorities. And a larger fraction is ill-informed about the first part, due to platforming liars and psychopaths, like you suggest.
Only part of Trump's voters thought this would be the outcome, but we're stuck with the results.
Please, quit playing word games. We've moved past that, and America won't survive if you treat this like your high-school debate club.
For some people those issues exist in a realm of debatable topics because they're not affected by it. It's apparently within the realms of debate to justify mass holocaust of babies abroad. Kinda like a video game. And clearly, people shouldn't be assassinated for merely playing video games.
> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."
Whenever I saw him engaging people, he certainly was. Often, they weren't, but he pretty much always was, even going so far as to deescalate. Although what you said is often parroted, there's no much evidence in your favor, if any.
When Kirk was on camera talking to a college student he typically used soft words and spoke calmly. The output of his life went far beyond these camera-ready moments.
Saying "we should handle things like we did in the 1950s" when speaking about trans people using the bathroom of their choice is not my idea of kindness.
You still haven't supplied any evidence or proof of your claim:
> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."
His main purpose on his college tours was to promote the debate and discussion of different viewpoints. Very often the viewpoints of his listeners were very different from his, but he invited open expression and dialogue regardless.
Kirk deliberately deadnamed Lia Thomas in public. Is that healthy debate and disagreement? Kirk said of transwomen using the bathroom that "someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s." You know, when LGBT people were famously regular victims of violence from citizens and cops alike?
Yes, Kirk had strong opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. And in his public tours, he always had an open mic to give anyone an opportunity to express opposing views.
The context of Kirk's words you are quoting are actually about a trans person winning an athletic event. More significantly, you misinterpret his words to fit your framing of him. He did not advocate for violence against LGBT people.
The Sacramento Bee also initially misinterpreted his words in the same slant you are and after careful reexamination, realized their mistake, retracted their accusation against him and apologized.
> An earlier version of this column included a statement that Charlie Kirk had “called for the lynching of trans people.” The basis for this accusation is a video clip in which Kirk was upset that a trans woman had won an NCAA swimming championship. In the clip, Kirk said that instead of letting the woman compete, “Someone should have took (sic) care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s.” Some trans advocates on social media extrapolated from Kirk’s comments that he called for trans people to be lynched - an accusation The Bee repeated. But a review of the video shows that Kirk never advocated for trans people to be lynched. In fact, he strongly denies the accusation. These notes have been added to the column. The Bee regrets its comments and we apologize for any misunderstanding this earlier version may have caused.
I said that his words were not "healthy debate and disagreement" and I absolutely stand by the claim that deadnaming trans people is not "healthy debate and disagreement," even if that trans person did well in a sporting event.
> You know, when LGBT people were famously regular victims of violence from citizens and cops alike?
What point were you trying to make here?
Requoting your earlier claim:
> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."
This seems to be a general characterization of Kirk, that he generally did not advocate for healthy debate and disagreement. By watching his many videos where he frequently listened to opposing viewpoints and also by the fact that he always had an open mic during speaking events, it's pretty easy to disprove your claim.
Cherrypicking one or two incidents where you interpret his words as against healthy debate doesn't support your claim.
Maybe you can help me understand how precisely he'd like to deal with trans women using the bathroom. And perhaps we can understand this within the context of the legal policies he advocates for regarding trans people.
I also still insist that deadnaming people is the polar opposite of healthy debate. It is an action done to demonstrate a total lack of respect for another person.
Well I haven't heard stories about transgender people being lynched in bathrooms during the 1950s or 1960s. I haven't heard stories about Transgender athletes during that time breaking records either. It's a euphemism, people can read into it what they like. I would expect at some level he meant shaming and bullying
> your deliberate lie to claim otherwise is grist for the hate mill that led to his death
Please don't respond to a bad comment with another bad comment. This kind of accusation is highly inflammatory and unfounded, and clearly against the guidelines.
It is false to claim that Charlie Kirk "call[ed] for the deaths of specific groups, but . . . indirectly"
People need to be reminded that they "cannot, month in, month out and year in, year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault . . . and not expect that brutal, violent natures . . . will be unaffected by it." (Theodore Roosevelt)
It's fine to refute a claim with opposing facts or opinions. We agree it was a bad comment, and we would have had no problem with a response that kept within the guidelines.
But the guidelines are very clear about making swipes and posting in an inflammatory style. These are the guidelines are relevant here:
Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
It's clearly against the guidelines to accuse someone of telling a "deliberate lie". None of us can know what they knew or sincerely believed when they wrote that comment.
As I've kept saying I agree that theirs was a bad comment and agree that it should be flagged and killed, but we need you to try harder to avoid personal attacks and escalatory rhetoric like this. You've been here a long time, we value your contributions and tolerate some boundary-pushing from you because we want a broad spectrum of views to be represented, but sometimes we have to say "enough". Please just do your part to make things better here not worse.
What are you even talking about? He was a shining example of what healthy debate looked like. I cannot think of a single other influencer that debated as openly as he did, on either side.
Members and leaders within the TPUSA chapter at my local university engaged in a year+ long harassment campaign against multiple professors, including a friend of mine. This included writing hate speech against trans people (my friend is trans) in coursework right up to legally protected boundaries. This was done in concert with an effort to get these professors fired for "discriminating against conservatives."
I am confident that this was done in an organized fashion with support. There is no chance that these random children knew precisely where to place their hatred in ways that which keep them from getting expelled and also ensure that their professors had to regularly read hate speech whenever they went to grade assignments.
Kirk has visited this university and celebrated the TPUSA organization there.
Kirk's twitter feed is also filled with egregious homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism.
Kirk attended organized debates and used soft words in those debates for the camera so that he could "own" college students. But if you expand to look at his public words they quickly stop being so soft. And if you expand to look at the output of his organization, things become much worse.
While I don't believe that Kirk personally organized this campaign, I do believe that this was materially supported by the TPUSA organization and that Kirk is responsible for the culture of the organization and the output of that culture.
Kirk invited open debate in particular contexts while acting against open debate in others. He was not operating under a principle of supporting open debate but instead used specific on camera interactions as a rhetorical device.
it was the performance of a guy "owning libs". It is not much of an honest debate if the guy enters it with a set of pre-packaged ideas that never get updated.
Their comment wasn't a strawman. The "event" in question was a political rally, not a moderated debate. He was there to promote his platform, anything else he did was part of the performance.
I don't think you should be killed for performances either
If you/society see the performance as beyond the pale, inciting violence then you should arrest the person and give them due process, or change the laws to reflect your beliefs
You seem to implicate "you/society" as the issue, but I didn't shoot anyone. So really it's society's issue, and we're in this situation because the Overton window is so irrevocably wide. Moreso than ever before, our bipartisan system is chock-full of extremists. People who want to kill CEOs, people who want to kill politicians, people who want to kill minorities.
The ordinary response is always "well, some gun violence is tolerable" but that doesn't seem to be reflected at all in this comment section. Many people are treating this as entirely unacceptable - so, from square one, how do we want to legislate a solution?
I am Australian, the state that we have become is just sad. The fact that this is brought under the disguise of "child protection" is ridiculous and I never would have imagine a future in my own country where I have to submit my ID to access anything online. They will never achieve anything with this because everyone will just use VPN. It's costing taxpayer's money without any useful outcome. The level of incompetence displayed by this government is astonishing.
* The Labor government's failed 2010 internet filter policy, [1]
"Those who claim the government's approach is akin to the sort of political censorship practiced by authoritarian regimes are simply misleading the Australian public."
* The Liberal government's passed 2015 mandatory metadata retention laws, [2]
"Critics say Australia’s data retention scheme is mass surveillance, and metadata is used to track where people go."
because it doesn't seem like you do. I could also point to the UK's full-take surveillance apparatus, or the US, from around about the same time-frame.
It boggles my mind that they gave police a legal avenue to take over accounts and modify data a few years later:
The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021 (SLAID Act) introduced new powers for Australian law enforcement to combat serious cyber-enabled crime. These powers include data disruption warrants, network activity warrants, and account takeover warrants.
Just a note - it's not just "this Government" - this is bipartisan and has a long history spanning decades. Both sides are just as incompetent as each other when it comes to technology and the Internet.
It's exactly the same kind of problem that we've always had here, summed up in 1964 by Donald Horne, "Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise."
I guarantee this will be the response when this doesn't work - surprise. They'll claim it was a sure thing, that they did everything right (even though they went through multiple rounds of sham "public consultations" and ignored all the expert testimony)...
I’m not sure if there is some super secret hidden motive / conspiracy here but I do know that the internet and social media is basically poisoning politics and society. Go read about what’s happening in Japan. Some loser started a political party based on 100% lies about immigrants and vaccines destroying the country (sound familiar?) and just gained a huge share of votes in a small amount of time.
The argument you’re making is “freedom at all costs” the trouble with all of this is, can we even trust ourselves with this freedom. Your big brain might be immune to l the cruft out there but that’s not universal.
I honestly don’t know what the answer is but we’re in trouble. The reason China does what it does it not just because it’s an authoritarian hell hole, but because they know the games they play on others and don’t want it to happen to them.
I’m not sure if you’ve read 1984, but having our children brainwashed online is a great way to get us close to total authoritarianism, on the other hand you’re arguing that by having to ID yourself when logging on (let’s face it, that’s already happening) means we’re already in 1984?
There was frustration around the globe about pandemic policies. Specifically lockdowns, mask mandates, check-ins, and "no jab no job" ultimatums, which have since been identified in many places as excessive abuse of power that went beyond public health all the way into the social coercion manipulation zone.
On immigration, is it not worth listening to the concerns of locals on rising immigration numbers? On associated social unrest? Or do we label them "100% liars" and censor their words with mandated face-scanning and digital check-ins.
This how good lies work. You take an element of the truth and wrap it around the lie. Japan might very well be frustrated about immigrants but that doesn't make every complaint about immigrants true.
It would be really cool if you did some research before commenting.
They argue vaccines don't work and the reality is Japan's immigration numbers a minuscule and basically the only way to be in Japan as an immigrant is to have a visa and a job, or you're out. They don't have any "illegals".
Do you have any idea how important vaccines are in a country with a predominately old population and some of the lowest birth rates in the world?
Do you have any idea how important immigrant worker are in a country which is basically running out of workers?
These people don't really care about outcomes, they manipulate fools en masse to vote for them so they can get into power do corrupt / cruel shit. It's populism with zero practical implementation plan except being an asshole to the most vulnerable people in the country to keep xenophobes happy.
I think the poster you are replying to is talking about what's going on in Australia while you're talking about Japan, sounds like some wires crossed there.
But the point still stands that what you're implying you want to see - a broad Government-run censorship campaign cracking down on free speech - is not the solution, and probably will only make things worse in the longer term.
I'm in Australia, but I was talking about the whole globe. A clue is when I said "around the globe". From China to USA, the pandemic restrictions and hustle went overboard in many cases.
Often these opposition parties might use theatrics, exaggeration and outlandish claims to attract attention. In some ways, this might reflect the official channels who spray a lot of fear-based propaganda initially. So there might be an overcompensatory reaction to an overcompensatory action. Not trying to excuse blanket anti-vax theories.
Vaccines are of course great inventions, but sometimes the waters get murky with pharmaceutical companies and their ethically poor track records, suddenly making huge profits and frantic politicians calling the shots on public health. Throw free-speech crackdowns in the mix, and now we have a problem worth talking about without emotion.
But what's your solution to extreme amounts of disinformation and propaganda ? This is my issue, everyone is all free speech at all costs, but if you look at the USA, the cost is extreme, potentially even terminal. I don't really see anyway out of it at this stage, I hope I'm wrong and I hope free speech prevails, but right now, I can't see it's looking good.
I'm not saying your wrong, nor am I saying "free speech bad", I'm saying something needs to be done to at lest protect children from ideas like, "Winston Churchill started WW2 and Hitler was just a victim".
Personally, I'd be taking issue, serious issue, if the plan by the Australian government was to block access to libraries and history books, but that's not what I see happening here, they're to do something about foreign propaganda poising kids brains and because the companies would never regulate themselves, they're trying to do something but it seems futile.
That's not the solution. The prevailing theme taught to kids these days is "question everything". Not taking things at face-value, or believing memes and one-line theories, forms part of the young person's toolbox these days. It really does. Their teachers are drilling into them the dangers of online misinformation.
You and I wouldn't have known the difference between misinformation and disinformation in our school days (I'm assuming you're grown up), but kids these days know all about it. That should give you some comfort.
If certain Japanese political parties are making wild claims, let the dust settle and the ridiculous stuff eventually is exposed. Don't ignore subtle variation and nuance when for example we examine the claims made about the covid vaccine and protection from transmission. Or effectiveness of masks, etc. In Australia, police were literally tackling people to the ground outside for not wearing masks. So let's not trust government issued health advice so blindly either. Let's find a middle-ground of analysis & discussion.
Not sure how old you are but a lot of the younger people are the more right wing at the moment, look how popular Joe Rogan is, do you think the kids are "questioning everything" there?
Maybe, but the proposed cure is far, far worse than the disease. Hell, in your very post, you bemoan how untrustworthy and/or authoritarian governments and politicians are.. and the solution is to hand them more power, more surveillance?
https://github.com/thedotmack/claude-mem
reply