I mean, Office Space and Silicon Valley are legit funny. I doubt how I can be "frustratingly sad" after watching either of the two because in Office Space, (spoilers ahead) but the ending is actually quite happy and more about realizing life's about what you want and it might not be a desk job and Silicon Valley is hilarious in terms of how it parodies the 2010s tech culture but its more about "look what tech has become" rather than "oh my god everything sucks, all idiots everywhere, we're doomed" type energy.
Also a lot of Silicon Valley stuff is kindda bs esp the arc where one single dude figures out such a massive leap in tech so quickly and then solves P=NP using freaking AI and then doesn't sell out to Hooli. You gotta suspend a lot of disblief for that but people don't talk about how unrealistic the main plot is
Also the episode where Jared has to explain scrum to vet developers like Dinesh and Gilfoyle. Like you seriously think they didn't know what scum was before meeting Jared?
Its a regime that killed 10s of thousands of its own people for protesting. Ofc its all blatant lies, cute legos or not. There's literally no good sides to this war (anymore)
And yet, despite all of american help bombing their universities, water treatment plants, power plants, bridges and child schools those ungrateful bastards are not throwing this "hated authoritarian government"
Fucking ungrateful bastards! I've read in Wikipedia and western media how caricaturally evil this shia government is on this shia population! 30.000 deaths! We have proof! a CIA report!!!
That country was safe, had a decent standard of living and high life expectancy and that despite the sanctions.
Without sanctions & active support I guess it might have surpassed UAE.
It seems to me, the US government that makes the citiziens of other countries as miserable as possible and despite these attempts Iran managed just fine.
The regime's own published number is 3,000. If you look to how the regime provably undercounts the executions it commits with them normally reporting only 10%, going by historical precedent you would come out to 30,000 dead.
> Its a regime that killed 10s of thousands of its own people for protesting.
Nearly a thousand insurrectionists armed by the U.S., as Trump admitted, and crowds seeded with Mossad agents - as Mossad boasted about on both X and TV, were instructed to create as much death & havoc as possible to set the stage for regime change. Though several thousand died, the number was below 3k, and the Epstein coalition didn't get their regime change. All those bloated 10k-60k numbers are imaginary.
Hell, Trump was angry as there were supposed to be even more deaths, but he says the Kurds looted the weapons meant for the "protestors".
If this was done in the U.S,, it would be a 9/11 moment and your nation would go to world-war. But alas, the U.S. directly & indirectly owns the majority of the world media and the truth trickles down only days & weeks later. Thankfully, Trump is so stupid that he can never keep his mouth shut. And Mossad is so arrogant and protected that they boast about their wetwork missions on their official social media & Israeli TV channels.
Trump is noise, not signal. He has "admitted" plenty of things which are untrue, and sometimes self-contradictory. Even trying to model him as a rational liar is a nonstarter.
I keep getting downvoted and flagged, but there is noway anyone in good faith would support this war crime. A president who threaten to send a country to stone age, saying in front of everyones face that he wants to take the oil..
I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime, when we have on other hand, someone who is vocally saying that he is willing to destroy the country's infrastructure and steal their oil.
Well, sure I don't mind getting flagged or downvoted. But at least I speak my mind and what I believe is true.
This isn’t a contest for most just or most evil. Iran has committed horrible atrocities. The US’s approach to this war has been completely wrong and they are threatening war crimes.
So one side is evil while the other side is just wrong ?
Like after 300k deaths in Irak when the administration said "sorry we have been misled by wrong information about the WMD"? They made a mistake, yet Iraqis were evil.
US armed rebels, that is their history, Israel wants to the current government down at all cost.
They did that with Iraq, ISIS, they trying with Kurdistan..
I'm not defending a theocracy, but this is not how countries are freed. And he is clearly claiming to take the oil, destroy their infrastructure and take the country to the dark ages. If Iranian government was saying that, hell would go lose.
Actually arming rebels is how countries are freed. Its not the only way but it is one of the most common. Also Iran arms rebels so whats your point in highlighting the US support for rebel groups?
Your perspective on who is being liberated and who is doing the liberating relies on a simplistic narrative. Ironically, the central figure of that narrative, Donald Trump, has openly stated that he does not mind seizing oil or returning the nation to the Dark Ages. Furthermore, they have backed armed protests and expressed a willingness to arm Kurdish factions.
I am uncertain about the logic or framework you are utilizing. If you believe such actions constitute "freeing" a country, then we clearly do not share the same moral and ethical standards.
Iran has been saying this about Israel and the USA since 1979 and has been arming/propping up Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, who have has similar language on their flags/in their charters.
Keep in mind that we now know that US supplied the protestors weapons to wage violence during the crackdown that resulted in many police officers being killed. We also know that the US has run a campaign to turn protests into riots in past events. And we know that the US sponsors campaigns to create unrest in the country.
If Iran sucks, it is only because the US wants it to suck
The USA didn’t turn Iran into a terrorist Jihadist state attempting to get nukes. Not everything is the USA’s doing, give extremely violent Islam its fault as well.
Iran has funded/stood up Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels whose flags and charters include maximalist jihadist rhetoric. Iran my entire life has pushed 'death to America'. When Iran's leadership was killed they talked about welcoming it and Islamic martyrdom. My entire life that is my exposure to what an Islamic state looks like. Sure seems jihadist to me.
The only thing those groups have in common is their hate for israel. And israel has intentionally made them the enemy. As it has done with Iran. And blackmailed trump to go after Iran.
At this point you simply just back away from all indications of “iran bad”
Wait, cites on the "US supplied Iranian protestors with weapons" bit? Other than Trump? It sounds ridiculous to question whether he's telling the truth, but here we are...
Are you suggesting I provide a citation for the President's claims? Beyond his reputation as a loose cannon, it is difficult to fathom why he would boast about such a thing.
From the beginning, the primary objective of this conflict has been for Israel to eliminate regional resistance, leaving Iran as the final holdout. By arming internal rebels to oppose the administration, external forces are essentially inciting a civil war to topple the government.
While the nation and its current leadership require reform, it is important to remember that these radical regimes do not emerge in a vacuum. Their perceived need to resist stems from external efforts to dismantle them. Such radicalization is often the direct consequence of aggressive policies, including economic sanctions, historical support for Saddam Hussein, and the installation of corrupt monarchies.
Every radical movement triggers a counter-movement, making it difficult to distinguish cause from effect. Much like the chills and fever associated with the flu, these movements represent an extreme but instinctive immune response to an outside threat.
Yeah but western powers have been threatening, bullying, murdering and undermining Iran and it's people since they nationalized their own damn oil three quarters of a century ago.
How do you expect an abused dog to turn out? It's probably not going to turn out very nice isn't it? The Iranian regime would chill out just fine on their own if only the west would stop being so cruel to them.
That's exactly it, and what's more they are kicking the abused dog even harder expecting submission. At this stage, it seems it would rather die or push the abuser away.
Iran has been "threatening, bullying, murdering and undermining" Israel since it was taken over by an irrational Shia theocracy. This war wouldn't be happening if Iran had behaved in a sane and rational manner over the last 35 years.
> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime,
Well mainly by having Iranian friends who tell us their government is an evil regime, and when we try to insist our government is evil too, lecture us about our privilege to show they really mean it.
youre only getting downvoted because they pay people good money to make sure their ridiculous narrative gets front page every single day. us murders a countries leader and a bunch of school kids and suddenly iran is accused of murdering 100k protesters and committing war crimes... like wtf lol
Saying things is not a war crime. So if Iranian soldiers surrendered to US soldiers and they were shot that would be a war crime. I don't think that happened? Hegseth statements could be used to support the claim of war crime under such circumstances if they were to arise. [EDIT: As a commenter suggests it is possible that simply saying this is a war crime, or at least there are some legal opinions suggesting it]
Attacking civilian targets with cluster bombs has happened and Iran is doing that as we speak. That is a war crime.
Attacking infrastructure is not a war crime if that infrastructure serves a military purpose. Attacking purely civilian use infrastructure is a war crime.
Threatening to attack civilian use infrastructure is not a war crime. Threatening to attack infrastructure used for military purposes is also not a war crime.
Mowing down protestors with machines guns is not a war crime but maybe we should consider it a crime against humanity.
EDIT: FWIW I do care about what Hegseth said. It's wrong and he shouldn't have said that. But people say stuff- what matters are the actions.
There are some actual acts that count as war crimes as well, that Hegsdeth has overseen - killing civilians off the coast of venesuela by attacking and sinking fishing boats, but also then killing the civilians after theyve jumped ship.
then in the iran conflict, leaving the sailors to drown after sinking iran's show boat with a sub
The US should do better. But we got here when the parent said:
> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime,
Iran's government mows down protestors by the 10's of thousands. They beat woman to death for violating the dress code. They conduct public hangings in stadiums. They routinely use torture and arbitrary arrests. They and their proxies bombard civilians routinely. They recruit child soldiers. The list is just endless. How is that even comparable to the US government?
The confusion comes from the fact that the regime which is very clearly better for its own people is also the one which actions are clearly awful for the rest of the world (if only because it has vastly larger means).
It's not confirmed but I agree it was very likely a US strike. An accidental one.
Assuming the US did not intend to kill school girls that is also not a war crime. You can certainly argue that this happened due to the US decision to go to war and claim the actions to not be moral (or illegal as some have stated). Others might argue that more harm would occur if no action was taken and that the action minimizes the overall harm (e.g. to the Iranian people or others).
You could also argue that attack was intentional. I don't think there's any evidence of that and I'm not sure what purpose it served if it was one.
It is difficult to extract the real purpose of most things about this war, if you're in the US, since almost every single part of it seems against the US' interests and public face.
You're probably technically correct and that the US didn't intentionally look in Google Maps for an elementary school and decided to destroy it. But did we really need to Double Tap it?
That tweet by Timothy Snyder is quite ridiculous. There's just no way that's the motivation behind all this.
Unfortunately it's also the only motivation anyone has presented that there is any real hope of actually achieving. And it's the kind of excuse trump could use to become glorious dictator. Or at least I wouldn't be surprised to learn he thinks it is.
No, I really don't think that's why this war was started. I don't think trump actually wants terrorist attacks in America. But it just might be what he will get, whether he likes it or not.
> I don't think trump actually wants terrorist attacks in America.
He might not but he's surrounded by christian evangelist lunatics who think bringing about the end times is their moral responsibility and, more importantly, they are in charge because Trump is an addled idiot who has fewer thoughts in his head than an orange cat.
US president, holding nukes and saying things like "whole civilization will die tonight" is just state terrorism of the worst kind, ... so far, yes. It may become a war crime of genocide. Not sure why should I or anyone wait and see, before issuing sweeping comments about all of america, which made this possible, by working hard to building up the military capable of doing it and giving power to nutjob issuing the threats.
Be sure that this US threat is not just against Iran, it's a US threat aginst the entire world, and it will be taken as such by many, you war crime justifying tool.
Also pretty telling, that you're using intl. law to justify US attacks, instead of using it for what their purpose was,... which is to limit the ways in which states execute war. The same thing Israel was doing to justify murdering 20 000 children in Gaza, just constantly finding "loopholes" and using it retroactively to justify every single thing they did that someone contensted.
Why do you think no one cares? My feeds are outraged. Maybe some normies can’t keep up with all the specific heinous stuff coming out of this administration, but I don’t think they’re happy about it.
> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime
Iran mass murdered tens of thousands of protesters in one day. I was outraged when Trump’s goons murdered two Minnesotan protesters—if we can agree this is evil, it should follow that a regime that murders tens of thousands of protesters is also evil. This isn’t complicated, which is why you’re being downvoted (I did not downvote you).
Neither the precise scale of the killings or the degree of militancy of the protesters has been well documented. It's reported that a lot of policemen and revolutionary guard soldiers were killed too.
Remember, Mossad publicly boasted that they were on the ground with the protesters, which was a pretty insane thing to do and basically gave Iran carte blanche to say these aren't protests, it's a foreign sponsored coup attempt. There's very little we can say to that when Mossad basically publicly said it was.
Maybe they were so sure the protests would succeed they figured it would earn them/justify goodwill with the new government?
FWIW, my information comes from Iranians who speak regularly with their families who still live in the cities where these killings happened. They talk about protestors pushed into a market place by IRGC with just one exit—the market was set on fire and anyone who fled out the exit was shot by IRGC.
Also, if you know anything at all about the history of the Iranian regime, it’s entirely unsurprising that this happened. They respond murderously to every large scale protest, and have been mass murderers since they turned on the leftists and other allies who helped install them in ‘79.
> it's a foreign sponsored coup attempt
This is what the regime says every time large protests erupt internally. I’m not defending Israel, but these were innocent unarmed people protesting even if Israel played a role in organizing the protests. I detest the Israeli regime as well, but justifying either side’s mass murder is insane.
Man, if you've followed Iran, you'll know that some exile Iranians are a bit like exile Cubans. Like the latter, they have plenty of legitimate things to be angry about, but that doesn't mean they aren't, a good deal of them, batshit crazy. Lots of them support the son of the CIA-supported dictator who was so bad he landed Iran with their theocrats in the first place. Some of them are supporters of MEK, a goddamn case study in political cults.
> This is what the regime says every time large protests erupt internally
Yes, but that doesn't mean they're not right. US and particularly Israel outright took credit for it, to a degree you'd be hard pressed to find any time in history. It wasn't just a spontaneous uprising, it was also very openly a foreign sponsored regime change operation.
Which doesn't mean they're aren't a lot of innocent people who have wanted to get rid of the theocrats all along getting murdered. I'm sure there are.
There are just enough in the opposition who have decided to ally with Israel (which would rather see Iran a Somalia-style failed state before a free and democratic Iran) and the dictator's sonthat any kind of moral legitimacy the movement could have had is out the window.
There's a lot of incorrect information here, but I prefer not to veer farther from our core disagreement by litigating details that seem tertiary (though I'm happy to discuss them in another thread or after we've resolved our core disagreement--it's an interesting topic).
You were originally arguing that the Islamic Republic isn't evil because the protestors deserved to be killed because Israel and the US claimed to have coordinated the protests. I don't see how you're getting from "Israel and the US claimed to have coordinated the protests" to "therefore Iran's mass murder was legitimate". Even if the tens of thousands figure is exaggerated by an order of magnitude, it would still make the Islamic Republic an evil regime. Even if Iranians who criticize the regime are "batshit crazy", even if the US and Israel organized the protests, even if the Shah was really worse than the Islamic Republic, none of that justifies murdering unarmed protestors by the thousands. My position is that mass murder is wrong even if the protestors held opinions I disagreed with.
if the number of tens of thousands dead is true (and i'm highly skeptical, but let's go with that) then it correlates with the number of starlink terminals smuggled into sanctioned iran way before the protests. both us and israeli officials publicly boasted of mossad agents being on the ground (presumably coordinating these people exerting brutal violence; incidentally, these terminals were the reason for shutting down internet) and even bessant boasted about manipulating the currency into collapse to spark the unrests in the first place. that's all quite evil.
now, i'm against death penalty, but if a government under siege by foreign powers faces such an existential threat then that's one outcome to be expected ... those agitators had it coming. many innocent people died that day, but surely the majority weren't that innocent.
one can disagree with or dislike the irg, but i don't think they're evil, and if they are by the same criteria the us and israel are fucking monsters.
I would be entirely unsurprised if the US and Israel didn’t play a role in agitating, but the Iranian people genuinely don’t like their government. You can talk to pretty much any Iranian expat in any country. The protests may have been coordinated by Israel, but the people who died were ordinary citizens who want to live in a free country. The protestors absolutely were innocent by any reasonable definition. Protesting an oppressive government isn’t a moral offense.
> one can disagree with or dislike the irg, but i don't think they're evil, and if they are by the same criteria the us and israel are fucking monsters.
Yes, multiple governments can be bad, which is what this thread has been debating. Israel coordinating protests does not absolve IRGC butchering unarmed protestors. Iran sponsoring Hamas terrorism does not absolve Israel’s brutality against civilians. This isn’t complicated.
But as Trump has assured us, that’s the old regime which is completely different from the current regime, which as Trump again has assured us, is not anywhere near as crazy as the old regime.
/s
The Iranian regime is incredibly evil. That makes the American actions even more evil given that they’re providing that evil regime so much cover and allowed it to transition from their 86 year old leader with almost no opportunity for opposition.
So the country waging wars from the sky, threatening to take their oil, annexing Greenland, suffocating Cuba, the only country who used nuclear bombs twice...is what?
And anyone who knows a bit of history in the region they will understand that this is the case. They armed Saddam to fight Iran for 8 years. The main issue with Iran is that it is against Israel.
It feels like a lot of people on this thread believe that Iran can’t be bad because other countries have done bad things. This seems obviously absurd, but so many of the comments here take the form, “Iran isn’t bad, look at what the US has done”. Come on.
Gemini said
The point isn't that one side is "good." The point is that your binary notion of bad and good is far too simplistic for this reality. We are talking about nuclear powers threatening to send a country of 90 million people to the dark ages just to seize their oil and resources. Radicalism is not born in a vacuum; it is an extreme yet necessary immune reaction to an invader. When you are facing a genocide level threat, the moral calculus is not actually that hard. If you can't see the difference between internal policy flaws and a superpower threatening total destruction, then you aren't being objective. You are just taking a side with the party holding the bigger hammer.
You're making an obvious straw man argument. Acknowledging that the Islamic Republic is evil does not imply a moral comparison between them and the United States or Israel. There's no contradiction between opposing the US and Israel for starting this war and acknowledging that the Islamic Republic is an evil regime. That's the point of this entire thread: more than one group can be evil, and the Islamic Republic does not cease to be evil regardless of one's opinion about the US and Israel. These are not dependent variables. You are endorsing an obviously false dichotomy.
Oh, so you're ideologically captured by an admin that's proven to be full of liars. There was never a good side. There's no good side to war in nearly any case (limited exceptions and this is not (was never) one of those).
The most powerful country in history attacked a smaller country that wasn't a threat to the stronger country. Had the USA (and Israel) not attacked, it's unlikely that Iran would have struck first.
And Iran firing missiles on Israel in response to genocide in Gaza isn't really a credible threat. Israel could stop massacring civilians at any time to make Iran stop firing upon them.
That's not what you say it is. It is an estimate from UNHRC, which has a wide range. The estimate also seems to be for all dead, including counter protesters and government officers. Verification of any kind is in short supply.
It also does nothing to address the Iranian government's claim - strongly supported by US and Israel's public statements(!) that it's a foreign coup attempt rather than peaceful protests.
"Foreign coup attempt" is an extraordinary claim that is not backed by publicly available evidence. Indeed, it's not even backed by the statements by Iranian government officials, who are on record upholding the killings [1]. Furthermore, Iranian Ministry of Health officials have upheld these estimates of the death count. Eyewitness accounts uphold the fact that the Iranian government has perpetrated mass killings of protestors [2].
It is understandable that a person who distrusts the United States government would be led to believe the statements of a government in opposition to it. Indeed, the United States is engaged in an illegal war in which it is the aggressor. However, the statements of the Iranian government attributing protestor deaths to foreign-backed paramilitaries is not backed by any credible set of facts.
> "Foreign coup attempt" is an extraordinary claim that is not backed by publicly available evidence
It is not an extraordinary claim, and it's backed by absurdly strong evidence. As I said, it was pretty ridiculous that Mossad openly said not just that they wanted regime change (as the US also did), but that they were actively assisting in it. And in addition to the thousands of protesters who have been reported dead, hundreds of policemen or revolutionary guards have also been reported dead.
An ordinary, popular protest, even a damn angry one - even one armed with handguns! - does not kill hundreds of policemen. If you think that's possible, you don't understand the power difference between civilians and people with a full time job and training to use violence on civilians. Even if you would ignore the public statements (which I won't let you!) you simply do not succeed at killing so much of the state's violence apparatus without serious material and organizational support.
And anyone who's been following Iran for a while knows that yes, Mossad actually has shockingly many native agents in Iran (e.g. the murder of scientists wouldn't have been possible without it) and in addition there are political cults like MEK, and supporters of the dictator son Pahlavi, who are certainly organized and certainly not pacifist in their fight against the government.
It's your loyal party line messaging which is detached from reality.
(fails to produce any sources for unfounded claims, followed by a lot of rhetoric)
Note the failure to rebut the provided sources in my comment.
I accept that it's unlikely that you'll examine your own priors. My response is for the benefit of people who haven't had the chance to read extensively and travel, who might take your claims at face value.
You're good at trying to seem authoritative with your footnotes and links, but in this age of chatbots it's important to be able to see through that because it's trivial to bluff. Any idiot can be good at it. That's rhetoric. But you'd better get with the times: I think you'll find it's better to write like a regular human these days, rather than like a corporate news anchor or a chatbot, if you want to convince the commoners --- excuse me, I mean the "people who haven't had the chance to read extensively and travel".
The evidence I "provided" was evidence I think you already admitted. You do not deny that the US and Israel openly (and to repeat myself, insanely - it's so bad you'd almost think it was a deliberate attempt to sabotage any legitimacy) took credit for the attempt to replace the government of Iran to an unprecedented degree - why don't you find an example of an attempted revolution where a foreign country claimed to "be with you on the ground"?
I could have linked to the insane tweets with [1] and [2] myself, but why bother. I trust people to find them themselves if they're in doubt.
Never engaging with the credible evidence presented, claiming that heads of state said something they didn't. Other readers can be trusted to see through your lies.
I'm just really puzzled by people frankly, one would expect Hacker News to be of higher caliber. Read the history, watch real geo-political analysis. But even without that, a presidents in who screams profanity on social media, threaten to take oil and resources of other countries and bomb to the dark ages..even without any political background, this a real low for any position let alone the president of the US.
I think Social Media truly brought the worse in people. People are not trying to be decent anymore.
To be honest, this forum is where I come to take th temperature of the US "centrists" who brought us to this point. I've quit other social media, so this is one of the few places where I can hear what folks (who are often quite clever in quite a few dimensions) spout rather vicious thoughts.
The other spot I get exposure to this part of the US political spectrum is the comment section of a youtube guy who is pretty far to the right but who has a seemingly (at least to me) well-informed understanding of the facts- he's interesting because it's kind of wild to hear the more lumpen version of this site and what their concerns are: they are really mad that this war is happening instead of further domestic crackdowns on immigration.
In both cases, it's helpful to understand where folks who have some pretty misinformed understandings of history and politics are sitting with their opinions.
It doesn't seem surprising to me that a bunch of aspiring venture capitalists, who have probably have been or are on the cusp of having a small taste of the massive wealth that their work in building out the surveillance state has brought to their masters, have totally shitty politics.
I think you are right, I've also stopped social media myself recently and left with nothing but YouTube and the occasional visit on HN for tech.
With that said, and I'm aware that HN audience are mostly in tech but I always thought we in tech are better trained to think critically and look at things from various perspectives. But to see the exact same response patterns one would see in FB makes one surely question how many people are truly capable of independent critical thinking. I'm also starting to think that given the complexity of modern life and the amount of information we are flooded with people are simply choosing the most repeated narrative within their circle without much reflection or any critical thinking. At the end of the day most folks here are busy with other things and it is easier to believe they are evil and we are liberating then dive deep into one of the most complicated areas when it comes to history and geopolitics.
Well, a lot of the folks here also share the view that because they understand how pointers work in C or can orchestrate stuff in docker (or whatever the kids do these days) they must be smarter than all us dumb losers who can't figure out how to make our brains okay with this world.
It's an appealing view, and I get it. Probably not a bad idea to question at length.
I think the "human employees of AI" is a fun way to make stupid people think AI is real. Most people reading this article will actually think "Gaskell" is a sentient AI boss of human beings smh
So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen?
Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."
No, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that the literal reading of the term itself implies that poor people have less of a say than rich people.
It would if the saying was "vote with your dollars" or "vote with the dollars in your wallet". A literal reading of the term means you signal your vote/opinion by choosing what to pay for and it can hurt businesses since they have to generate revenue, not that $1 = 1 vote.
I disagree. The wallet is a term that can be augmented by 'fat' or 'full' or 'heavy', which means that a wallet can be different sizes. From this you would get that poor people would have thinner wallets and thus less effect on outcomes where money is a factor.
Fair enough, but I would still agree to disagree since I dont think it refers to what's inside the wallet or any other quality about the wallet but just that you should vote by action and boycotts.
But i mean, we are splitting hairs over semantics at this point. I could see both interpretations valid but i prefer mine.
The elected government can do something about these companies and their leadership if the people who elect them force it. It is not the job of the general public to regulate companies and their behavior; it's the job of the government in a regulated free market, and the common people elect the government.
I think it's because the UI sucks, like really bad. Why is there a CRT-type line in the background going down constantly. The mission timeline has weird colors that make no sense. Some graphs don't even fit their parent element. And so on.
I don't care if its vibe-coded but if you looked at this and thought "yeah that looks good", it only shows how bad you are at UI.
These types of interfaces are cool if you're like 12
Yes and there have been documented cases of translated malware. Sometimes its done a little sloppily and there is other evidence that points to the origin being in another country that doesn't speak the language its written in. But even then, you can't really prove they didn't just use a residential VPN or whatever.
Also a lot of Silicon Valley stuff is kindda bs esp the arc where one single dude figures out such a massive leap in tech so quickly and then solves P=NP using freaking AI and then doesn't sell out to Hooli. You gotta suspend a lot of disblief for that but people don't talk about how unrealistic the main plot is
Also the episode where Jared has to explain scrum to vet developers like Dinesh and Gilfoyle. Like you seriously think they didn't know what scum was before meeting Jared?
reply