This post was either written entirely by chatGPT, or mostly. Multiple instances of "...this isn't just X - it's Y."
"The contrast isn't just economic — it's philosophical."
"family wealth isn't just an advantage in entrepreneurship — it's often a prerequisite"
"entrepreneurial success isn't just about fairness — it's about creating more pathways for the next generation of innovators"
This fact doesn't undermine the value of the article - but it is frustrating for the level of LLM authorship to get to the point where I can spot this in a number of HN posts.
Cybersecurity "expert" here. This seems to be under-hyped, if possible. If there were login attempts that even appeared to be coming from Russia using valid credentials that were created less than an hour before, it can really only be explained by collusion or an attacker having visibility into the process that created the credentials in the first place.
The fact that the traffic appeared to be coming from Russia isn't particularly compelling, as it's very easy to make your web traffic appear to be coming from another country. But I struggle to understand why a legitimate user of those credentials would willfully make their legitimate use of government systems appear to be coming from an adversary.
[I'm attempting to ask this question in an apolitical way].
The consensus amongst economists appears to be that tariffs will have net negative impacts on our economy. Can someone explain the support amongst financially sophisticated people (e.g. Marc Andreessen) for a candidate whose economic policies rely heavily on tariffs? Is it just that they believe the benefits of Trump's other policies (e.g. deregulation of crypto) will outweigh the negative impacts of tariffs?
As impressive as the number of Starlink satellites is, the service has become unusable for me in Southern California, particularly for video calls. I’ve been told that the bottleneck is land stations, not satellites. Either way, I’ve had to cancel my Starlink service both at home and work.
I have minimal contact with YC these days, and have no particular motivation to artificially inflate the value of the program.
YC was transformational for my company (MedCrypt). I have almost zero negative things to say about it, and would do it again immediately with my next company (despite probably not needing help raising the first $500k for a company).
I can't think of a situation where I would recommend a company not accept a spot in YC.
Incorrect. I have friends with $500k payroll deposits due at noon Monday. Fdic has made no guarantees that they’ll have access to a sufficiently large amount to cover.
The sentiment on Twitter seems to be “tough. You, Etsy seller, took a risk by selling on a platform that used a bank that made a bad investment. The tax payer shouldn’t bail out a bunch of rich pottery artists.”
These sorts of effects (Etsy sellers not getting paid) are going to show up all through the ecosystem if 25% of venture backed companies can’t make payroll next week.
SVB equity holders should go to zero. But it’s in our collective best interest to make sure that depositors have timely access to some meaningful portion of their deposits.
To be clear, he likely has millions of shares of stock in SVB that are now worth exactly $0. He could end up being personally liable for SVB employee’s pay.
In general, I too hate when the “rich people” win despite screwing up. This doesn’t appear to be that sort of situation.
It appears as though he sold exactly the number of shares required to cover the cost of exercising options that were about to expire with his after-tax proceeds. This does not seem to me to be a nefarious transaction.
The only issue with the comparison of cryptocurrencies and sports trading cards is that trading cards will still provide some utility to the 1% of people trading them. The primary utility of cryptocurrencies is the anticipation of them going up in value. If 99% of people stop using crypto, it loses its utility for the last 1% of users.
"pH will drop to pH7.95 by 2045, and most marine life in our oceans dissolve."
As someone who considers themselves an environmentalist, I find this sort of language to have a net-negative impact on our collective cause. The paper fails to provide comprehensive evidence for the idea that a pH change of 0.08 will result in all carbonate-based marine life dissolving.
When 2045 comes, and the coral still exists, our populace will be further trained to ignore the warnings of climate scientists.
"The contrast isn't just economic — it's philosophical."
"family wealth isn't just an advantage in entrepreneurship — it's often a prerequisite"
"entrepreneurial success isn't just about fairness — it's about creating more pathways for the next generation of innovators"
This fact doesn't undermine the value of the article - but it is frustrating for the level of LLM authorship to get to the point where I can spot this in a number of HN posts.