I mean... insiders are betting on war crimes. Yes, the insider betting is bad but it doesn't even touch the edges compared to committing war crimes. And if the government is committing war crimes, why would they care about something so inconsequential as betting on them?
“People” do not love to work hard. Some people love to work hard. There are enough people that love to work hard to fill your small startup. There are not enough people who love to work hard to fill the economy. Only someone who has had the privilege of working in well-paid technology companies could write this article. People work to survive.
If you’re a startup founder, and your employees aren’t working hard, it is a failing of the founder to pick the right people and create the right environment, but that covers less than 1% of the economy. The other 99% aren’t working hard because they just want to go home and be with the people they love instead of generating shareholder value. No amount of goal sharing will change that.
I am very sympathetic to the situation you describe. I certainly think it is possible that Annie is describing something that happened. I think the author did a fair job of representing the allegations, finding the right balance between disclosing that they were unable to corroborate the allegations without dismissing them.
That said, "recovering" memories as a therapy does not pass any sort of sniff test and it doesn't take a concerted effort to discredit the concept. Human memory is very malleable. Patients with mental health issues (which could predate abuse, or could be caused by abuse) are often in search of answers and that makes them very vulnerable.
Could a memory be buried deep in our subconscious, forgotten, only to return to the surface later? Sure, we all forget things and then remember them when triggered by something, whether that's a smell or sound or something else entirely. But can we engineer that process, with any degree of reliability? How can we even begin to reliably reverse engineer the triggers?
I think it is also important to keep in mind that Annie is rich, and the health care available to rich people can be very predatory. There are endless examples of nonsense therapies for all types of health, from ear seeds to treatments for "chronic Lyme".
Memories that return organically due to a trigger are a world apart from "recovered" memories, we shouldn't conflate them. If Annie's memories were triggered in adulthood, sure, that's really no different than remembering something... but "recovered"? That is something else entirely.
Correct me where I'm wrong, I'd like to learn your perspective, maybe there's a missing piece.
Recovered memory therapy was a discredited hypnotherapy that leaned heavily on suggestion or was associated often with fairly coercive interrogations during the 80s CSA panic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria
> Memories that return organically due to a trigger are a world apart from "recovered" memories, we shouldn't conflate them.
Agree, though I think the mechanism can be a bit more towards the idea of a “recovery” of traumatic memory, even if the term as understood carries false connotations.
The concept you’re missing is dissociation, and dissociative disorders. In the 40s it was called just “hysteria”, and for many cases up to the late 90s an extreme form was called multiple personality disorder, now DID (dissociative identity disorder). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_disorder
Not everyone who goes through traumatic events will respond to it via dissociation of identity, and indeed not all people are equally capable of developing a dissociative disorder, 2 people may go through very similar events (say survive a war as siblings or even twins) and one might dissociate the traumatic experience and one might not. Dissociation doesn’t work quite like you might imagine from a term like “multiple personalities” - that happens in some extreme cases, but think of identity dissociation as an adaptive response to events or situations that are paradoxical (esp to a child’s mind), extreme or traumatic, and can’t be escaped or use of other mechanisms cant be called upon.
Dissociation is on a sort of spectrum, where at one side you have common experiences like zoning out when on a common commute, and on another you have separated self-parts/alter egos to handle wildly different situations.
It’s a mechanism I frankly wasn’t aware of and I’m not sure that I would be able to fully beleive or empathize with, but for my getting a diagnosis of a dissociative disorder changed my life, and made a thousand things about me that I could never figure out make sense. The “model” as it put it at the time responded to experiment, and by recognizing that I was dealing with pretty constant, heavy dissociation and different self states with memory deficiencies helped me figure out how to work through a ton of really intractable problems for me. I’m finally after decades of ineffective therapy able to really understand how I work.
Idk how to talk about it without sounding like I’m trying to sell the idea. But yeah it was a mind blowing thing to me. Over the last 20 years especially a ton of truly respectable research has been done and the increase in efficacy of treatments on dissociation, and trauma generally is one of the unsung advancements for humanity in the last decade. I think the number is that around 3-6% of people meet the clinical criteria for a dissociative disorder - OSDD, DID, DPDR, or dissociative amnesia. 5x more people than have schizophrenia, 5x more than have red hair.
The TLDR is dissociation is an important mechanism that most people don’t know about but has had a wave of research and study and is much more common than one might expect. The sad part is how often dissociative disorders correlate w abuse.
I’m reading more now and I think the missing piece for me is the distinction between “repressed” memories and “recovered” memories.
I understood repressed memories to be an accepted idea, distinct from “recovered” memories. I am reading that the people mentioned in your original comment rejected the idea of repressed memory altogether, and believed that everything traumatic must be remembered.
So, to me, reading that someone “recovered” memory reads like they went through a specific type of therapy intended to “find” these repressed memories. Whereas to you, “recovered” memories could be repressed memories that came back to the surface organically — whether at random, triggered or through a therapy intended to deal with disassociating. Is that right?
I'm confused by what you're saying. Can you help me reconcile your first post
> It feels to me like the unstated conclusion is recovered memory can’t be trusted, which is a popular understanding but a very wrong one put out by the now defunct and discredited False Memory Syndrome Foundation.
with
> Recovered memory therapy was a discredited hypnotherapy
I read your first post as standing up for recovered memory therapy and I can't find how the discussion of dissociation makes a difference. Does Fontain have it right that by "recovered memory" you mean "things people happened to remember on their own"?
In a fight between a piece of toilet paper backed by millions in legal spending vs a rock solid contract backed by nothing -- the toilet paper (even if it is used toilet paper) will win every single time.
For a little more color for people unfamiliar with modern sales/marketing:
1. A user signs up to BrowserStack
2. BrowserStack (automatically) upload the submitted user’s information to Apollo
3. Apollo “enrich” the user’s details using information they already have about the person, e.g: company revenue, LinkedIn profile
4. Sales reps at BrowserStack use the enriched information to identify leads, bucket for marketing etc.
Apollo’s customer data sharing adds any information BrowserStack send to Apollo to the person’s profile with Apollo, accessible to all Apollo customers.
For example, any other Apollo customer can search something like “email addresses for decision makers at Example, Inc.” and get back a list including your email address (if you told BrowserStack you are a decision maker at Example, Inc.)
Every single marketing team is doing all of this, the only reason it was obvious in this case is that the OP used a unique email address for BrowserStack. If you sign up for any business product online, you surely have a profile in Apollo filled with details about you gathered from around the web (and details you submitted).
So I'm not disputing this, but I set up a similar scheme to the author almost 8 years ago and conduct 90+% of my online business through the custom emails. Everything from Amazon to small local business.
In that time I have had 'leaks' twice: my State's Fish and Wildlife licensing organ, and GitHub. In both cases I assume it's more that the email ends up being public, not because of something like Apollo.
I guess it's possible that spam is getting filtered before it ever hits my inbox.
Edit: I was responding to the idea of it leading to spam, not that Apollo wasn't collecting information on me.
For those curious: I signed up with Apollo and looked at what they had on me (via the link in the flagged/dead post by fontain). The email address they have is technically correct, but it's a non-current work email. It's still active and I do get a lot of senseless/bizarre business sales inquiries on that address. The phone number they have is wrong and I don't recognize it. They have my LinkedIn byline; it's likely how I was 'found' so quickly, as my username is the same there. I'm listed as cold.
I used to do the same until I got tired of it. The only two leaks I found were United Airlines and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate, who sold my email to the Scott Walker campaign (strongly confirming my suspicions that Republicans use libertarianism as a gateway drug).
Maybe you'd have insight into something that happened to me recently:
I did a search (DDG, Chromium) for an Anker product line that I've been following. Clicked the link to Anker, skimmed, nothing new.
Then shortly I get an email from "Checkmate" with a promo offer.
I don't have an Anker account or whatever, don't recall signing in. I figure it's fingerprinting or cookies, but so far it's never been so overt.
I feel like this is an indicator of something, some sea change. Of needing to squeeze more water from the stone. My phone's been blowing up with spam calls since. I've been mysteriously added to email lists. I'm getting short-code text spam in addition to the regular spam, which when I report to 7726, AT&T basically tells me it's fine, it's paid for.
This may be a ploy to get me to turn the AI features back on in Gmail, but it feels like somewhere, lines have been crossed.
> This may be a ploy to get me to turn the AI features back on in Gmail, but it feels like somewhere, lines have been crossed
Lines have absolutely been crossed and there is no going back without a lot of political will
There are no rules anymore. The internet started it, and AI companies proved it. We're much worse of for it. The social contract is extremely flimsy nowadays
I had never heard of Apollo, but I was interested so I followed your link to opt out.
I have had the same work email address for 13 years. I have done lots of hardware and software purchasing in that time, and I am never shy of using my work email to sign up for things and give to account managers etc. It is used on my microsoft SSO, my Dell business account, my slack account etc etc.
After I jumped through all their hoops to opt out, I got this email from them:
"We searched our records with your email: xxx@xxxxxx but could not find any information associated to it in our databases. We will keep your email: xxx@xxxxxx in our suppression list in order not to create any data associated with your email. "
So I guess they might not be as ubiquitous in their data capture as you may have thought? Or they are straight up lying.
Not even, it’s the classic LLM SaaS spam that is swamping Reddit. The goal of the spam is to get a bunch of people on a credible website talking about a problem and then the OP will return to post a link to their product. Suddenly, all the powerful HN link juice flows from HN to their product. Every single entrepreneurial subreddit is covered in this garbage, so much so, there’s definitely some sort of e-book or course teaching people to do it.
YC has no problem with morally questionable behavior, many YC startups do things that are just as shady. YC is, ultimately, not responsible for what these startups choose to do. Delve’s problem is that they betrayed so many other YC companies in the process. An important value of being in YC is access to a ready-made customer base. The licensing issue is nothing compared to their fake audits but it is an affront to the YC community, hence, kicked from the community.
I’m sure if Delve has only engaged in fraudulent audits or had only resold another YC company’s product, they would have been allowed to stay, the problem is all of that combined pissed off enough other YC companies.
I think it’s partly that, but also that when you have something that is toxic, radioactive and on fire on your ship, you shove it overboard, and assess just how bad the damage was afterwards.
Scribd are quite annoying. The pitch was "the YouTube for documents" allowing stuff to be posted and shared but they tend to try and get subscription money off you to see anything unlike the likes of YouTube.
Scribd scrapes the web of all the .PDFs that it can find, then gates them behind a paywall and SEOs their way to the top of Google's rankings. That's it, that's all they do. They run a zero value tollbooth with other peoples' IP, taking advantage of users who don't have the search-fu to hunt down the documents themselves.
I think when making the claim a company is a net negative, it's necessary to explore what would have happened if the company hadn't been founded.
I find it unlikely, for example that there would not be a dominant centralized forum platform. People would have certainly started problematic communities on the dominant platform, and it's unlikely a platform with strict moderation would have gained dominance before 2015 or so. I do think a dominant player would have been established by 2015.
Do you think whatever you see as harmful about Reddit would not have occurred if the company didn't exist?
This comment assumes both that Reddit is harmful and the outcomes were predictable. The former is debatable, but I am sure the latter is not true; the founders of Reddit didn't know what they were building.
They thought it was a social bookmarking thing for people to find and share blog posts. It didn't even have comments for the first half year. For two more years, self-posts only existed as a hack where the poster had to predict the post's ID to make it link to itself. User-created subreddits didn't show up until about 2.5 years after the site launched.
I’m pretty sure all endless scroll social media has been scientifically proven to be harmful. Reddit also runs a 1:1 copy of TikTok.
I don’t really care to defend the morality of extremely wealthy VC firms like YC. They know the enshittification process that happens with 100% of the companies they fund.
They could create companies with charters and ownership structures that ensure they exist to better the world and make good products as their binding guiding principals, but they choose not to.
It would have happened more slowly at least, delaying the increase in populism, nihilism and depression in the Western world, the anglosphere in particular.
What traits specific to Reddit as opposed to a hypothetical generic alternative forum platform do you think are major contributors to those social trends?
Recommendation engine pushing users into ideological bubbles, public voting mechanism creating incentive for conformity which then creates purity spirals, lack of moderation.
Early Reddit had a recommended tab, but that didn't last long. The current recommendation features are relatively recent - this decade at least.
It would surprise me if the winner in that space didn't have a public voting mechanism. Digg, Reddit's early major competitor had one, and heavy-handed moderation surrounding the HD-DVD decryption key leak was one of the major inflection points that drove users from Digg to Reddit. Stricter moderation during that time period would have been a losing strategy.
The “I just have the arsonist the match, I didn’t tel him to strike it” approach of tech bros has caused untold damage to the world over the last 20
Years.
The opposite of an “A.I” company, he is reselling the services of another filled with humans. A great, profitable business, sure, a notable success, yes, but a 2-man billion dollar company made possible by A.I? No. Businesses like this have existed for decades and are vulnerable to their service providers stealing the business out from under them.
While the service providers are experiencing massive growth they are happy to share. When growth plateaus they will go after every cost reduction, including squeezing out non-value added resellers. Especially those with warning letters from the FDA for making false claims, as noted below.
As a distributor your value add was always making me markets. Once made, those markets are now trivial to take direct unless there is some advantage to having a local take a risk on stock- holding. I have worked in distribution and seen Amazon refuse to deal with the distributor and go direct as soon as they see decent sales, for instance.
he's making 400M+, so not a big deal, the distribution leverage is massive and now it's time to pivot and add real value appart from the huge brand he has now, i.e. through a unique customer support or who knows what. anyways, after 400M, one can say he already won the game
but this is the opposite right? they own the customer relationship. Amazon does the opposite. They control the customer relationship. Can the supplier raise prices possibly but so can they middle man. if they turn over the relationship to the provider then use bad business.
Well, this guy isn't training models in his basement—if that's what you're looking for?
I think the point of this article is that AI enables people to do so much more? Much of marketing is creating engaging content and AI allows people to create more than ever.
I’m struggling to see how anything he did is AI at all. Literally everything about his company is outsourced to an army of contracting firms. All this guy did was generate a marketing site that was filled with fraud.
"If you'd like to block a merchant and their recurring payments — please go directly to the merchant and ask them to stop recurring charges to your Wise card.
If you can't reach the merchant, or they haven't cancelled your subscription after you've asked, you can block future recurring charges to your Wise card through your Wise account."
I don't think that's standardized, it probably only has some heuristic to detect a subscription's associated payments and rejects them. It will not integrate in any way with merchants to cancel the subscription on their side, and in fact they suggest to first trying to cancel the subscription on the merchant side.
Determine the cost of owning the ice cream maker per year. For some people, owning something costs nothing and in fact provides value, they find comfort in owning things, used or not. For some people, owning things is a burden, a drain, and owning something unused is painful.
An ice cream maker costs maybe $200? How would you feel if you disposed of the ice cream maker and then a week later realized you wanted it?
If you want to soften the blow, don’t throw things away: give them away to someone who will use them.
I hate owning things, owning an ice cream maker that I never use would weigh on me and I would much rather spend $200 on a new ice cream maker every 5 years (that I give away after a month) than have an unused ice cream maker for 5 years.
reply