- The average US salary isn't $75k btw. That figure is usually quoted from the reported median household income in 2022[1]. The median personal income, which is the figure that should* be quoted, was around $45k for 2024[2].
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N
- No, the author is just stupidly spreading misinformation. Looking through their other posts, it looks like he has an agenda to prove that we're in an AI bubble.
- We need to bring back the web of trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
A mix of social interaction and cryptographic guarantees will be our saving grace (although I'm less bothered from AI generated content than most).
- > But humans rarely use pure deductive reasoning in our lives
The sensible ones do.
> nobody says "ugh look at this argument from authority, you should demand that the doctor show you the reasoning from first principles."
I think you're mixing up assertions with arguments. Most people don't care to hear a doctor's arguments and I know many people who have been burned from accepting assertions at face value without a second opinion (especially for serious medical concerns).
- Pseudonymity allows people to freely express ideas with others without fear of it seeping into all aspects of their lives. How else would individuals share and get feedback on things like health issues, relationships, employment, etc. without the threat of repercussion? The internet is so powerful as a tool for connection because of this layer of pseudonymity and striving for a 'nicer' internet is being content with a shallow version of the interconnected human experience.
- I'm genuinely confused about this story and the affiliated parties. I've actively tried to search for "Daniel Berulis" and couldn't find any results pointing to anything outside the confines of this story. I'm also suspicious of the lack of updates despite the fact that his lawyer, Andrew Bakaj, is a very public figure who just recently commented on a related matter without bringing up Berulis [1].
Meanwhile, the NLRB's acting press secretary denies this ever occurred [2]:
> Tim Bearese, the NLRB's acting press secretary, denied that the agency granted DOGE access to its systems and said DOGE had not requested access to the agency's systems. Bearese said the agency conducted an investigation after Berulis raised his concerns but "determined that no breach of agency systems occurred."
One can make the case that he's lying to protect the NLRB's reputation, but that claim has no more validity than Daniel Berulis himself lying to further his own political interests. Bearese has also been working his position since before the Trump administration started, holding the job since at least 2015. It's very hard for me to treat his account seriously, especially considering the political climate.
[1] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/nov/18/us-federal-wor...
[2] https://news.wgcu.org/2025-04-15/5-takeaways-about-nprs-repo...
- Setting aside the concept of "stupidity" for a second because it's too hard to generally define for the sake of argumentation, one can absolutely be successful at some things and incompetent at others. Your expectations of their overall competency, as with most assumptions of malice, is what fuels your bias.
- > DOGE wasn't an audit. It was an excuse to exfiltrate mountains of your sensitive data into their secret models and into places like Palantir
Do you have any actual evidence of this?
> I recommend anyone presume the best of actual people and the worst of our corporations and governments
Corporations and governments are made of actual people.
> Then presumably the game is finding the best way to turn you into a human slave of the state.
"the state" doesn't have one grand agenda for enslavement. I've met people who work for the state at various levels and the policies they support that might lead towards that end result are usually not intentionally doing so.
"Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"
- > Selling AI generated slop at full price
I think that’s for the market to correct. If people don’t spend money on AI generated products because they’re bad, that’ll send a signal to the company to pivot from their current strategy. If people are spending money on those things regardless, then maybe that’s an indicator that these processes create better output than what was present before. At the end of the day, in the absence of state intervention, the market will pick what’s best for them and consumers will react in ways that may surprise the online virtue signalers.
- Everything seems like a bubble to the people who got burned in the dot com era. Hype is automatically attributed to there being money disproportionately flowing to vaporware. That isn’t what I’ve observed. I think a lot of the current AI companies will fail, but I don’t think it’ll be from a failure to deliver a product or generate revenue. I also don’t think there have been valuations or investments that are any more extreme than they have been in the last decade.
- > we won’t work on product marketing for AI stuff, from a moral standpoint
I fundamentally disagree with this stance. Labeling a whole category of technologies because of some perceived immorality that exists within the process of training, regardless of how, seems irrational.
- > but once the damage is done why let it happen in vain?
Because there are no great ways to leverage the damage without perpetuating it. Who do you think pays for the hosting of these models? And what do you mean by distribute the IP and profits to the public? If this process will be facilitated by government, I don’t have faith they’ll be able to allocate capital well enough to keep the current operation sustainable.
- I agree. For use cases where side channel attacks are likely to be attempted, the security of the system ultimately depends on both the software and hardware used.
- Ironically, by trying to explain awaitables in Python through comparison with other languages, the author shows how much he doesn’t understand the asynchronous models of other languages lol
- > while being childless is a perspective that all people with kids got
This is a naive view of the world. Being childless is a qualitatively different experience for those in different walks of life. A childless financially unstable young adult will have a very different experience than that of a childless financially stable middle-aged adult.
- Delve was a word I used before generative AI and it's a word I'll continue using into the future. I will not let people's perceived use of AI stop me from writing what I want to write.
- I didn't watch it myself, but Glee was a very popular show. Since Josh Susman was a recurring character, it's unsurprising that he'd have a large fanbase (especially in LA).
- That just sounds like you're saying the "average" person in all those professions are bad at personal finance. Maybe that's a reflection of society at large. One articles estimates 90% of Americans being in debt[1] so it wouldn't surprise me that this successful subset would fare much better (although I would bet they do when compared to the general population).
Also debt isn't always bad, but most individuals quoted in the study are probably not holding the good type of debt (debt one can easily pay off but doesn't).
[1] https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/demographics/
- It read like something the young adult women I know would write. It's surprisingly normal.
src: https://www.reuters.com/business/groq-more-than-doubles-valu...