Nothing is being traded. There are no physical goods and there is no ownership of any company or products. These are gamblers. I hate that our news media is completely owned by these psychopaths

You're buying something of value and you might be underestimating or overestimating the value of that thing but you're still getting the thing. Specifically you are buying ownership in a company.

That's not gambling. You don't get paid based on the outcome. You get paid based on the relative value of the company.

Now if that system isn't working very well for you no shit, we have been deregulating markets for the last 50 years what the fuck did you expect? But that's not a problem with the underlining system that's you refusing to do the maintenance the system needs to function properly. If you stop changing your car is oil it's going to break down.

Gambling is when you are paid based entirely on whether a predetermined outcome happens or not. That is definitely what gambling is. You do not own anything. So you only get paid if the event happens. And there is a specific event that has to happen for you to be paid. That is gambling.

Even without the context we all know who I'm talking about.

I bring it up because dear God this administration is corrupt and in light of the subject of this comment what the hell was anyone expecting?

I think the real problem is about 25% of the population of any given country or dyed in the wool assholes.

From there all you have to do is push people to enough desperation that their brain stop working right. People under enormous amounts of pressure don't suddenly get better or smarter. They make bad decisions and they make more of them.

Like believing a famous pedophile who bankrupts everything he touches is somehow going to reduce the cost of groceries. Somebody who can think straight knows better than that.

It could also just be money laundering. I've seen several of these absolutely enormous thefts and they're so large that it's basically impossible to get away with it. You can't move hundreds of millions let alone billions of dollars like this and not have it be readily traceable.

If they catch the guys who did this then yeah we will know but if they haven't caught these guys in a few months then it's either North Korea or one of the other nation states or it's just money laundering. Honestly the money laundering could easily involve nation states like Russia or Iran or North Korea.

This is basically right, although no one should think the solutions will be easy or obvious. The internet is geared toward allowing people to do horrible things without consequence. It needs to be exactly the opposite. The ultra-rich won't want that to change, many are rich for precisely that reason.

"And quit trying to force your views on everyone else."
Even when those views are about social media designed for force views on everyone else? Do you not get the irony, talk about a "simpleton point of view"!

"...so they think everyone else should be forced to give up the Internet as well. Fuck off."
Considering that no on is advocating that, we should all see your post for what it is, an attempt by a simpleton to express contempt for what he doesn't understand.

"With social media ... we tried to start with a global city and it turned out to be a tower of babble."
Except that is utterly false. Social media was always about villages and exclusivity. Tribalism was a foundational principle of social media. MySpace was about particular content creation, Facebook was exclusive to college students, this exclusivity drove popularity, a "global city" was the enemy from the start. "Birds of a feather" is literally the foundational principle of social media, it has never been otherwise.

I don't know who you think "we" is, but I certainly understand that, the problem is that the OP doesn't. "The internet" here means what a layperson thinks, it is the content not the nuts and bolts. The internet is what you interact with, not the phone line you use to do so. No one advocates that data services should die.

"We just want web 1.0 back"
No, we don't. Ignorance is what has created the mess, it will not be the solution to it. Your opinion is based on your assumed personal superiority, an assumption at odds with your simplistic view.

There is no accountability on the internet, by design. Until that changes, "the internet" will be corrupt and "we", as in you, continue to think that's the right answer. Web 1.0 had no accountability, that was the part preserved to enable the corruption we face.

I have been saying these things since the 90's, for at least 30 years. Greed and corruption was apparent then, all that has changed is how obvious the social damage is. Back then, the enthusiasm was directed to how to exploit ad revenue devices to take money while providing no product or service, literally pure greed. That was what drove the internet then and drives the internet now, a return to "Web 1.0" does nothing to fix that even if it makes you feel better about yourself.

It should also be understood that it's not just "the internet". The computer revolution was driven by opportunities to improve productivity, people was interested because they cared what they could do. Computers and applications were driven by improved capability and that's what computer sciences focused on. That is not true today, instead computing is oriented around exploitation and corporate profit and that is now what computer sciences focus on. That's why modern software development sucks, it's entirely greed-driven. AI is the same, research used to focus on capability, now it's money grab.

You'd have more credibility if you understood that censorship doesn't apply to reading, it applies to writing.

"I don't read any of them, so I am not censored by them."
Fabulous.

"There is no need for the internet as defined above to die..."

Which is why that's not the definition of interest.

We've somehow lucked out with our stupid interview programming test. It is the most basic and dumb thing possible: an HTML based fizzbuzz. Candidates come up with some really elaborate solutions and present their work beautifully. Then we ask them to make some changes in real-time. You know, like, change a color. Add some inputs to control the factors. How do you approach a change in requirements? What I've been noticing is that people are delegating everything to LLMs and have no idea at all how their program works. They instantly get lost trying to figure out how to add an input to an HTML page, or change the output. The more elaborate the solution, the more they struggle to find out where anything is.

You go to the right schools and you meet the right people and you get to pretty much do whatever you want. And you get into the schools because your parents get you there and their parents got them there.

If the working class had half the solidarity of the Epstein class we would live in a Utopia

Sounds like you suck like ordinary Joe off the street. Funny how shitty programmers don't know what good programming is.

"So this is what the skillset interview should evaluate. Can you use the modern tools to generate good product, and do it pretty quick."
How about do you know what a good product is? Because in your case, no.

It's not a product it's capital. It's not something you sell the people it's something you use to make things.

It's a labor saving device. Automation. In other words a job killer.

There are studies that clearly indicate that factory automation is responsible for approximately 70% of the Lost middle class jobs since the 1980s.

We have been automating away high paying jobs as fast as we can for decades and AI is just another extension of that.

The Epstein class doesn't want to sell you products. They don't want to have you as an employee. They look back at the Kings and emperors of old and say, that should be me. I shouldn't be dependent on consumers and employees.

They are planning a new world and you're not part of it.

And because nobody gets it unless I say it this way, like George Carlin said it's a big club and you ain't in it.

For some reason one Carlin says that everybody understands but when I explain it it's right out the window.

so an AI apologist expresses an opinion on human talent evaluation and hiring practices? Why should anyone care? Nothing he claims about the abilities of Claude mean two shits when it comes to hiring a human to do work. If you only cared about the solution in the challenge you wouldn't be hiring.

Frankly, coding challenges during interviews are terrible, good riddance but not because of AI.