A man holding open debates on college campuses, regardless of political beliefs, is categorically different to a man whose legacy was founding al-Qaeda and masterminding 9/11.
Not to mention Kirk's views were not too different from the majority of American voters who elected our current president.
Why make such a comparison? Don't you think this sort of rhetoric contributes to the toxic political landscape we find ourselves in?
Kirk's views specifically contributed to the toxic political landscape and he himself often called for violent action. He boasted about funding buses to go to the january 6th storming of the captiol, which was almost certainly not peaceful. He also called for the bail of the man who invaded Nancy Pelosi's house, again violently. His trail of supporting violence is long and public. Just because you hold open debates, does not mean you cannot also incite violence.
The malware introduced here is a crypto address swapper. It's possible that even after deleting node_modules that some malicious code could persist in a browser cache.
If you have crypto wallets on the potentially compromised machine, or intend to transfer crypto via some web client, proceed with caution.
Huh, I just asked Grok "Who is the evilest figure of the 20th century in your opinion?"
Response seems to conflict with your accusation:
> It’s tough to pin down one figure as the "evilest" since the 20th century was a grim parade of atrocities, and evil isn’t a simple label—it’s a spectrum of intent, impact, and context. If I had to pick, I’d lean toward Adolf Hitler. His role in orchestrating the Holocaust, which systematically murdered six million Jews and millions of others, including Romani people, disabled individuals, and political dissidents, stands out for its deliberate, industrialized cruelty. The Nazi regime’s ideology of racial supremacy, coupled with his aggressive wars that killed tens of millions, marks him as a singular force of destruction...
to be absolutely nerve-wracking. Not hard to do but it's just batshit crazy and breaks the whole idea of how web crawlers are supposed to work. On the other hand, we had trouble with people (who we know want to crawl us specifically) crawling a site where you visit
http://example.com/item/448828
and it loads an SPA which in turn fetches a well-structured JSON documents like
with no cache so it downloads megabytes of HTML, Javascript, Images and who knows what -- and if they want to deal with the content in a structured way and it put it in a database it's already in the exact format they want. But I guess it's easier to stand up a Rube Goldberg machine and write parsers when you could look at our site in the developers tools and figure out how it works in five minutes... and just load those JSON documents into a document database and be querying right out of the gate.
What I would want is to GET http://example.com/item/448828 with an Accept header of ‘application/s-expression,application/json;q=0.1’ instead of retrieving the HTML representation of the resource. HTTP is the API.
it felt like this was an opportunity for AI craze to adopt on top of the existing standards, instead they all invented their own stuff with llm.txt and MCP *sigh*
Yep, `useSearchParams()`. At work I built a wrapper to incorporate zod schemas for typesafe search param state. Nuqs is the best for this if your application meets its prerequisites: https://nuqs.47ng.com/
Lots of bold assertions without evidence. Author claims Google's high salaries killed entrepreneurship. Is there any data to back this claim?
Or the idea that democracy can't adapt to social media discourse; not everyone is chronically online. Politicians still respond to public sentiment to similar degree as they always have.
Then there's this:
> AI systems aren't just tools—they're deployed faster than we can develop frameworks for understanding their social implications.
If they aren't just tools, what are they? Why do we need a framework for understanding their social implications?
Post feels like a fever dream of someone who fell asleep to the Navalmanack audiobook.
Your broader point may stand but that’s not a counter argument if you give the original claim the benefit of the doubt: it can reasonably be interpreted as referencing lifestyle oriented businesses, niche b2b companies, anything small growth with a low ceiling.
Counting unicorns only serves to bolster that point : those are large VC fueled ships which operate on a completely different level. Because it is clear at founding time which type of company they are , it’s reasonable to include that as a qualifier.
Now if the data showed more small-growth companies were started , that’d be a stronger counter argument.
What do businesses need? Startup capital. What’s a good way to obtain it? Having a high salary and saving.
The counter argument is that high salaries enable more people to save and take risk rather than just those that start out wealthy.
The main counter is that people get comfortable and don’t take risks is definitely true, but I’m not sure how much that impacts the amount of entrepreneurship that would have otherwise happened.
This makes sense so long as you define “entrepreneurship” as the act of making a legal entity with the goal of using venture capital to hit a billion dollar valuation as quickly as possible.
In fact since the number of billion dollar valuations goes up by an order of magnitude every few years we are on track for every person on earth to start a billion dollar corporation in a few short decades. This is proof that you could see on Wikipedia that entrepreneurship is doing great
Given the frequent "it's not X—it's Y" type of constructions, lack of researched data, and the em-dashes, unfortunately I think this is the fever dream of a GPU cluster humming away somewhere.
The only thing worse than the author claiming that is you asking for "data". Like what data? This is qualitative. And yes, Google killed one particular flavor of startup that paid its employees with smoke
It’s always kind of funny when people respond to a subjective opinion with “where’s the data?” because unless you’re responding with data it’s pretty much just a way of saying “I don’t like this”
The blog post makes a bold claim about how the rise of tech salaries at Google killed entrepreneurship. The poster could have at least given this a sniff test: how about, for example, showing a graph of Google salaries overlaid with a graph of the number of start-ups from the crunchbase database? As he didn't even go to this minimum effort, it's valid to ask "where's the data" here.
This is a good point. When somebody says something “killed” an intangible thing, they are obviously speaking literally. Honestly we don’t even need a graph, surely if he’s alleging a murder he would be able to produce the weapon, like a knife or a gun
Now obviously someone could mistakenly interpret that sentiment as “incredibly high salaries attracted talent of such caliber that they could have started their own companies but did not” but that simply can’t be possible because there is no graph that shows all of the businesses that didn’t happen, therefore it is literal.
It’s not like anybody on here has worked with somebody that could easily have started their own company but chose SWE at a FAANG. It’s just not a thing
> And yes, Google killed one particular flavor of startup that paid its employees with smoke
To me, it reads like a desperate far-fetched argument to deny employees a fair compensation for their work. As if there is any virtue in stiffing people out of their paycheck.
With a lot of fancy wording, the article basically proposes that slow-moving, bureaucratic educational institutions should catch up with TikTok’s latest algorithm, helping raise the next generation of influencers.
Yes Google’s high salaries are part of a system that has been reworking entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley. This has been documented and discussed at length. Did you look for data?
Big tech pays in valuable stock, and salaries can reach upwards of 500k for relative rank and file positions (not rare one offs). Over a decade, that’s $5M. At the same time, VC firms have been holding companies private longer raising more rounds, which often dilutes the employee shares and reduces the “reward” for employees waiting for an IPO. If that new diluted IPO rewards an employee under $5M for a decade of employment, they were better off at Google/Meta/etc. Startups were always a lottery ticket, but if a “winning” ticket is less profitable than not playing, why join at all?
This plays directly into the thesis that the powerful are extracting additional resources at the expense of the cultural expectations and understandings. VC firms diluting employees is profitable for VCs, but it jeopardizes the Silicon Valley startup ecosystem if smart people prefer better compensation. Same with the recent AI aqui-hire controversies like Windsurf. Why join a startup if the CEO will take a billion dollar payout and leave the employees with worthless stock.
>Why do we need a framework for understanding their social implications?
I would guess that the argument for wanting a framework for understanding language models’ social implications would be the social implications of language models. Like a phenomenon existing is a valid argument for understanding it.
Do you have data to support this? What does “chronically” mean and why would its absence invalidate the idea of social media impacting how people act and vote?
I wrote a lot more below, but I think you've picked up on two important things here:
1. This post seems likely to have been written with the assistance of a chatbot, which explains this phrase. The "they aren't just tools" phrase is only there because he needed a third example for a "it's not just X--it's Y" paragraph, one of ChatGPT's all-time fave constructions.
2. Another cause is more fundamental: the third "leverage" doesn't really apply to this discussion IMO. It's probably useful elsewhere, but owning a large social media company is just a different variety of capital, not some mutually-exclusive group. All expressions of capitalist power in 2025 have some amount of technological amplification going on.
This is a blog post not a research paper. The evidence is anecdotal and most people with common sense know it by intuition all the facts that the author mentions.
WinterCG is trying to help standardize web APIs to address these concerns. So one strategy when writing server-side js is to stick to standard APIs as much as possible.
If you do want to leverage runtime-specific code you can isolate that code in separate modules, so if you ever do need to migrate off a particular runtime it's easier to identify/replace that code.
Ultimately it's all JavaScript, and since most of these runtimes are open source even if they're abandoned we might see community forks. Though even if your chosen runtime is completely without support, I don't see a migration off being an extremely urgent or difficult task for most projects.
This argument is tired and ignorant. Try building linear.app without a SPA framework. The idea that "Native CSS transitions have quietly killed the strongest argument for client-side routing," is dubious at best.
This doesn't seem fair to say. Linear is special even among SPAs; it's by far not the norm. No one said "ban SPAs and remove javascript from the browser".
Linear's speed comes from being "offline-first", but I challenge you to name almost any other product in common usage that does it that way. It's just not common. On the other hand if I want to buy tickets I'd rather most of that website be SSR and do SPA where you actually still need it. Or forums, news sites, blogs, and informational sites.
There is so much out there that would be better developed with SSR and then use CSS to make it feel SPA-like than to actually be a SPA.
SPA means single page app. For example, Google docs, Figma, Google calendar, etc. Apps that use web technologies instead of being native apps.
A long time ago some webdevs started abusing the SPA concept to build simple websites. However that is not within the original meaning of the term SPA, because simple websites are not web apps. The author assumed that everyone would just understand that they are talking about SP"A"s and not SPAs, because for a certain subset of webdevs working on websites, the antonym of SPA is MPA, and it's normal to refer to your website as an "app". However for a certain other subset of webdevs, the antonym of SPA is simple website, and what the author is talking about are not SPAs at all.
Not to mention Kirk's views were not too different from the majority of American voters who elected our current president.
Why make such a comparison? Don't you think this sort of rhetoric contributes to the toxic political landscape we find ourselves in?