> People may celebrate the break-up of google, but it will be short lived

You know what will be short lived? The disruption itself. We're not talking about the death of Sol.

The most significant fact in all of this is that everything will stabilize and we'll all be fine (except the monopoly, which is the point). And when it's all said and done, we'll come out the other side better for it.

> That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed.

Who's gonna tell him?

In brand velocity maybe, but copilot is rapidly reaching feature parity with cursor and will invariably overtake it—while costing less to users.

Same with Google vs OpenAI. I tend to agree with the sentiment that I most frequently hear which is that OpenAI is the currently popular brand, but that can only carry them so far against what will eventually be a better offering for cheaper.

Have they given a reason for being hesitant? The whole point of IL4+ is that they handle CUI (and higher). The whole point of services provided for these levels is that they meet the requirements.

The following is required from the company using a provisionally authorized vendor service:

* organization required to perform a Risk Assessment (is this standardized?)

* organization must issue an Authority to Operate (ATO) (example? to whom?) to use it for CUI as the data owner.

* organization must ensure data is encrypted properly both at rest and in transit (is plain text typed into a chat window encrypted at rest?).

* organization must ensure the system is documented in a System Security Plan (SSP) (example?).

* organization must get approval from government sponsor of each project to use CUI with AI tools

I am the one pushing for adoption, but don't have the time or FedRAMP/DISA expertise, and our FSO/CISO would rather we just not.

> take an IQ test, skip the BS, work with highly intelligent people

This is the way.

3/10 troll

That's antithetical to many of the foundational rules of the internet, which are core to 4chan culture.

The whole point is that they don't let the fluctuating, weak-willed whims of normie sensibilities determine what's allowed.

And thats exactly what I don't like, there's no good reason why the internet has to be like this. It's simple, just be the same online like how you'd be irl. Tired of all these people that would talk shit online but become weak irl.

Then again this is just my opinion, I don't like 4chan because of the mentioned reasons so I don't visit it. Nothing trollworthy about that.

Oh I was just saying it came off as an uncle er troll because it's like a weak bait with a comical conclusion.

It's like saying "4chan would be great if they were more like reddit". But the entire point is to not be like reddit. HN is largely equivalent to reddit for this point—progressives who cant fathom the existence of intelligent people who reject frail sensibilities; who conclude out of such closed mindedness that anyone who rejects those sensibilities must be broken.

I think there's room for improvement in both places. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the value in the internet is that you can be exactly the way your are IRL. As someone who rejects a lot of ultra progressive stuff (most of what's astroturfed as "normal" by giga-progressives corporations that have taken over the internet and banned dissent for 15 years), I appreciate that I can at least feel a false sense of security sharing mentally sound ideas that have been recognized for thousands of years without having my life ruined.

> That's antithetical to many of the foundational rules of the internet, which are core to 4chan culture.

The most foundational rule of the Internet was the sharing of information, and that's a coincidence of hackers being the first to adopt it. Being macho and emotionally stunted was never a foundational value, that's immature manchildren equating kindness with weakness.

Except for a some of the population of white countries right now, almost everyone in existence now and throughout the history of our species is and has been extraordinary more conservative—and racist—than western progressives. Even in white countries, progressivism being ascendant is a new trend after decades of propaganda and progressives controlling academia/entertainment/"news".

It genuinely boggles my mind that white progressives in the west think the rest of the world is like them.

EDIT: When I said "I've felt the same way", I meant about outlawing advertising. Propaganda in general should be allowed—especially the political kind. But consumerist propaganda (aka advertising) needs to be abolished.

___

I've felt the same way. Some thoughts I had while reading:

> Propaganda is advertising for the state, and advertising is propaganda for the private. Same thing.

Rare to see someone else recognize this. Not all propaganda is malicious; all systematic spreading of ideas aimed at promoting a cause or influencing opinions is propaganda.

> Think about what's happened since 2016: Populists exploit ad marketplaces

This feels like calling out conservatives. Ironically, it's through relentless propaganda over a century that progressivism has become ascendant. We're reminded 24/7 from every mainstream institution, that what has historically been radically unpopular is ACTUALLY "normal" and "respectable". Indeed, it's only through such incessant propaganda that overwhelmingly unpopular trends have been able to take hold.

> what poisons our democracy is a liberating act in itself. An action against that blurry, “out-of-focus fascism”

What poisons our republic is progressives forgetting that they're ascendant and how they got there.

That is not an objection. Two decades of webapp progress instead of native app progress would have (and still would) addressed all of that.