> Because the internet was invented in America so it's the only country where a country suffix was never used from the start of its popularity.
I expect some countries like the UK and Australia to use something like `co.uk`. I expect many countries to use their own top-level domain. I do not assume that some `.com` website is American.
Is “the only” based on experience? How many websites from how many countries have you come across?
> I'm not saying this is good or bad or justified or not, just saying what the conventions are.
Do people associate `.com` with “company”? Or just “regular website”? Are people even stopped from making a `.com` if they don’t have a “company”?
> I do not assume that some `.com` website is American.
If it's clearly local to somewhere (news, shopping, etc.) as opposed to global or a webapp or something, and doesn't say it's specific to any other country, then yes people generally assume it's American.
Because when sites are intended for audiences in other countries, they usually use a country-specific TLD. Which, for historical reasons, never became a convention in the US since it's where the Internet was invented.
If you haven't noticed that this is a clear pattern, I don't know what to tell you.
UBI is an idea from another money-centric ideology, namely “libertarianism”. It’s not an idea for fostering creativity. It’s an idea for dealing with less employable dependents of society, while the true dependents (parasitic capitalists) take the real spoils of industrialized productivity.
Every day, millions go to work because they have to eat. Every day, thousands (?) go to their computers in their free time and make OSS software. Not because they have to eat but because [?]. Then they or others complain that people take their work that they do for free under no duress for free.
Maybe economists could do what is ostensibly their job and try to prevent the “tetris game of software depending on the OSS maintained by one guy in Nebraska...” situation. In the meanwhile people who do things under no duress for free could stop doing it.
(Not that OSS is all hobby activities. There are many who are paid to do it. But these appeals only talk about the former.)
> To use an analogy: if the village idiot went to the town square and shouted hate speech, he'd be laughed at or dealt with. Now anyone has a platform to go to the town square, except it's the world, and shout hate speech. And unlike before there will be hateful people, some of them unrecognisable from real people, who will support the village idiot. They will help amplify his voice and validate him and legitimise him.
As usual the problem is the commoner idiot, not the group of sociopaths that now have the means to astroturf their agendas efficiently.
Especially puzzling since this submission is about exactly the latter.
> We have to find a way to stop this. The only thing I can think of is require you to attach your real identity to social media accounts, and regulate the living daylights out of it to hold the networks accountable if their owners don't want to do the right thing. Free speech isn't free.
Think harder then.
The village idiot could move and reinvent himself as a respectable fellow. Basically, pre-digital we naturally had different personas; there was no Panopticon that could ever hope to know all our associations. Digital tools have changed that. And inventing the fiction of “one single persona” to tie back to what you said five years ago, ten years ago, thirty years ago, is a terrible idea, and I would argue (based on intuition) very unnatural.
Russia is a waning superpower with a low GDP but a powerful enough internal economy to wage a conventional invasion of a large European country. The US is a much richer country, the leading superpower, and an IT powerhouse. But for some reason the first thing that pops into people’s mind when they hear propaganda bots is “Russia”.
(I would buy China, too. A huge country with a powerful economy.)
That in itself looks like a programmed response.
Of course Russia uses bots and propaganda. But the focus on Russia seems completely out of proportion.
> The account, which describes itself as “a proud Scottish lass” and “passionate about Scotland's independence & our right to self-determination”, is based in Europe (according to X’s location data).
I get suspect everytime an online socialist overuses famous socialist terms (or supposed socialist terms) before segueing into a conjunction. “Of course I want the socialist utopia just as much as all of us, comrades, but...”
> Yes, there are security risks and all but honestly this is the future.
That’s it? There are security risks but The Future? On the one hand I am giving it access to my computer. On the other hand I have routine computer tasks for it to help with?
Could these “positive” comments at least make an effort? It’s all FOMO and “I have anecdotes and you are willfully blind if you disagree”.
The issue here with the negativity is that it appears to ignore the potential tremendous upside and tends to discuss the downside and in a way that appears to make as if it's lurking everywhere and will be a problem for everyone.
Also trying to frame it as protecting vulnerable people who have no clue about security and will be taken advantage of. Or 'well this must be good for Anthropic they will use the info to train the model'.
It's similar to the privacy issue assuming everyone cares about their privacy and preventing their ISP from using the data to target ads there are many people who simply don't care about that at all.
Sometimes I wonder how we got here. Data breaches everywhere, my 64gb of ram i7 workstation slowing to a crawl when opening a file browser, online privacy getting increasingly more impossible. Then I read HN and it all makes sense.
This keeps getting worse everyday, people are now bragging that they don't care about privacy. I know HN is supposed to for wannabe Founders, but you would still expect them to have some guardrails. No wonder everyday we hear about Data leaks.
This is what has been repeated again, again, again, again, and again since the election. Those other commoners did it. They wanted it.
So much effort spent talking about how democracy was so powerful—all the wrong commoners got what they wanted—right up until Trump and now it’s too late, no one cares about this one comment box.
I’m not an American. I just have a vested interest in the commoners of America getting their stuff together.
reply