This thread feels like it went off the rails given that every locale I've ever lived in (many across the US) had fine, working garbage collection, and plenty of competent garbage men who worked for what I'm guessing was decent pay, certainly less than $10 million a year.
The thread started out off the rails. Contrary to the claims of youre-wrong3, garbage collection is not a particularly high paying job and has no real trouble getting new hires.
I think in reality, it shouldn't be hard to find people willing to take out garbage by simply paying a little better than other manual-labor jobs. There's always going to be people who can't work other jobs for some reason, so if they're choosing between manual labor jobs, the one that pays more is going to be more attractive. They don't need to pay enough to hire a doctor, because not that many people can do high-value work like that competently.
And there will always be people who think that driving around in a heated/air-conditioned truck with a big claw that picks up and empties the cans is a fun job and will happily do it at any reasonable pay level.
Not everyone wants to work in an office; some people really like working outside and being indoors is like prison.
Snowden is still a horrible analogy when comparing to this situation.
Snowden released classified data at great personal cost - he is now a US fugitive and will be promptly arrested if he ever tries to leave Russia.
Sarah Wynn-Williams wrote a tell-all book for which she was paid. My understanding is that she also signed the non-disparagement clause as part of her separation agreement, in order to get a substantial severance (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
I've only read parts of Careless People, and I think it's great that Wynn-Williams wrote it and exposed some details at the personal level of how nuts these folks are. But I take issue with framing her as some kind of victim ("Meta stole Sarah Wynn-Williams Voice" - give me a fucking break). Meta wouldn't be able to do shit if Wynn-Williams hadn't told them she'd keep her mouth shut for a pile of money. What did she expect would happen after she received that pile of money and then opened her mouth?
Literally every VC funded consumer product has switched from a "growth at all costs" phase to a "Now we hike prices, make money, and generally enshittify" phase, and tons of those companies are still around (e.g. Uber), so I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be much different for AI.
As I see it, the only thing close to a moat is CC for Anthropic, and since it is a big ol' fucking mess that is a) apparently now beyond the ability of any current SOTA LLM to fix, and b) understood by absolutely no human, I'd say it's not much of a moat. The other agents will catch up sooner rather than later.
The other providers? I don't see a moat. We jump ship at the drop of a hat.
I think the situation we'll end up in is having closed models that are fast and near perfect but expensive, and a lot of cheap open-source models that are good enough for most people.
> No moat --> It's basically OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic left at the SOTA. Maybe soon, we'll have 2 left.
Yeah, but do we even need them? Non-SOTA is still pretty damn good; remember last year, pre-SOTA? How many people were boasting 10x - 100x productivity increases using the end-2025 models?
So the non-sota models support doing 10 hours of work in 1 hour. Many people would be fine with that. Fine enough that they aren't going to spring for a SOTA model that cuts the 10 hours to 0.5 hours, they're just going to use the cheap models to cut the 10 hours down to 1 hour.
Ok, ok, so they can't keep up with "Demand". Now lets go parse what that demand is:
Is it: We want to use this to "Kill a bunch of people"
Is it: I'm very lonely, and need something to tell me suicide is ok
Is it: Google is so filled with ads, I'm just going to ask the LLM what to buy
Is it: A useful coding tool to improve work flow towards end products.
Cause, if we ignore ethics, some of that demand will generate revenue to pay for it's existence; the others will do nothing of the sort.
Just because there's demand doesn't mean that demand equates to the value of the product. There's lots of demand for LED light bulbs, but once those light bulbs are sold, that demand disappears into the night. This isn't an analogy of AI, but to demonstrate you can't just wave your hands and say "demand leads to a sustainable business model".
> It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about.
This encapsulates the entire moral bankruptcy of "the Epstein class" so perfectly. I highly recommend reading the series about the Epstein class by Anand Giridharadas (Giridharadas didn't actually coin the term "Epstein class", apparently that was Ro Khanna, but he really was the first to popularize and clearly define it).
An iPad absolutely doesn't make kids "better at technology", if anything it makes them worse because it just wraps everything up in a braindead simple package for consumption.
Ironically, Gen Z was supposed to lead the way as "digital natives", but in many ways they are (speaking broadly) much less technically adapt than, say, Gen Xers, because Gen Xers had to struggle to figure stuff out because it hadn't been all wrapped up with a bow yet, and thus we got to understand the details of how thing worked at a deeper, more fundamental level.
I recall reading some articles about how many Gen Zers new to the workplace didn't even understand how file systems or directories worked, because things like iPads largely hide those details from the end user.
And to emphasize, I'm not dumping on Gen Z - they're, like everyone, just a product of the environment they grew up in. But I strongly disagree that getting access to an iPad makes anyone more technologically adept.
20 year olds are bewildered when they see me opening a computer and replacing stuff instead of bringing it to a shop. "Where did you learn to do that?" It used to be the only way, everybody with a computer did it. The strange thing is that it's still possible but they don't think about it.
It's simply not true at all that everyone who owned a (i'll be generous and assume you're talking about PCs) computer serviced their own computer upgrades and part swaps. In the 80s and 90s most people would take the whole PC to the store and get a whole new PC. The consumer market has always been dominated by pre-builts.
About as neat a trick as opening a slot machine, pulling out the mech and fixing a jam.
There is a massive qualitative difference between API knowledge and foundational knowledge. The former is tied to the usefulness of the platform, the person with a macbook or an iphone looks at you the same way you look at a person fixing their car or slot machine. I for one am sick of the gross fetishization nerds do of cheap knowledge.
The same thing that makes your knowledge useful (usable) is the same thing that makes it useless (negative utility). You can only change your likely PC parts because it's long been standardized and a whole industry has ossified around those standards. You've confused learning about computers with learning about a standard. Someone else would roll their eyes at your statement, "well duh of course you can't take an IBM 360/40 to the shop"
It's not hard for me to imagine that performing as one of the world's most beloved rock stars, doing what you've loved for many decades, is an enjoyable way to spend your time, regardless of the paycheck.
I've been involved in many startups, and this type of fundraising is not common, or at least it wasn't common before a few years or so ago
The whole concept of talking about "runway" is basically calculating how much cash in the bank, that is actually in your bank account, will last. And this arrangement is different, as there are contingencies. In the past, VCs would just give you money in a particular series, and then if your business did well, they'd eventually give you more money in a later series. But it wasn't like they announced it all up front in, say, a Series A, but a big chunk of the money would only be delivered if you met milestones.
Both of CFS B rounds were cash, in recent years, and each in the range of "low billions". Sure another 2 orders of magnitude is another story, but so is selling hope. I'd say the latter is the thing that is unique here.
$100B isn't a startup. And if there's a $100B deal, you better believe the cash is there. Case in point - Netflix/Paramount wanting to buy WB. Or the $44B that Musk had to raise to buy out Twitter shareholders.
Both your examples are purchases. Musk had to raise actual capital to buy Twitter because the people getting the money were taking it and walking away.
Funding doesn't work like that. Investors are giving you money as part of a longer-term deal where they stick around.
This was already common in tech for Series C+ fifteen years ago when I raised a round. Once you’re talking tens or hundreds of millions, almost everyone wants milestones and tranches instead of giving all the money up front.
That may be true in some cases, but I disagree about that in this case. TFA links to numerous sources for it's data (e.g. https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/723186/ for the White House app, and AFAICT exodus privacy is a legit service), and discussions around government applications that are loaded with surveillance tech (and in many cases it seems like the apps' primary, and sometimes only, purpose is data harvesting) seem very on-topic for HN.
Also, FWIW, while I found the layout of the top section of the article to be weird, the actual text body and linked sources were easy to read for me.
I was referring to the graphics/animations that the GP comment mentioned. I was more confident that those were AI-generated than the actual text. Upon further scrutiny I'm having second thoughts.
There are multiple cases of inconsistencies between certain claims and the sources that they linked to:
> The acting IRS Commissioner, Melanie Krause, resigned in protest.
> DHS's own internal documents admit Mobile Fortify can be used to amass biographical information of "individuals regardless of citizenship or immigration status", and CBP confirmed it will "retain all photographs" including those of U.S. citizens, for 15 years.
> ICE Homeland Security Investigations signed a $9.2 million contract with Clearview AI in September 2025, giving agents access to over 50 billion facial images scraped from the internet.
If I really wanted to force the claim that the body text is AI-generated (or assisted) then I'd guess that the LLM (likely Claude) counted the "dangerous" icon from its appearance in "The icon [Red exclamation mark] indicates a 'Dangerous' or 'Special' level according to Google's protection levels."
> And the whole CBP ecosystem, from CBP One to CBP Home to Mobile Passport Control, feeds data into a network that retains your faceprints for up to 75 years and shares it across DHS, ICE, and the FBI.
This makes it appear that there are separate apps running concurrently, namely CBP One and CBP Home. They aren't. From the linked source, "CBP One is no longer available". It was replaced with CBP Home. The source does not mention Mobile Passport Control.: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/cbp-on...
> ...discussions around government applications that are loaded with surveillance tech (and in many cases it seems like the apps' primary, and sometimes only, purpose is data harvesting) seem very on-topic for HN.
Which is exactly why I said: "Some submissions are less about the subject matter than they are about providing a space to talk about only the subject in general."
The article in its entirety reads more like a desperate attempt at spinning the recent release of the "White House app" into a story about state surveillance. The problem is that it doesn't have a cogent conclusion or point to make except for a "Surveillance Data Pipeline" graphic that depicts ICE as the central destination for all of this data and the following:
> The federal government publishes content available through standard web protocols and RSS feeds, then wraps that content in applications that demand access to your location, biometrics, storage, contacts, and device identity. They embed advertising trackers in FBI apps. They sell the line that you need their app to receive their propaganda while the app quietly collects data that flows into the same surveillance pipeline feeding ICE raids and warrantless location tracking. Every single one of these apps could be replaced by a web page, and they know that. The app exists because a web page can't read your fingerprint, track your GPS in the background, or inventory the other accounts on your device.
>
> You don't need their app. You don't need their permission to access public information. You already have a browser, an RSS reader, and the ability to decide for yourself what runs on your own hardware. Use them.
What is the link between the two? Who is the "You" being addressed here? We have apps that are apparently used only by ICE, apps meant for foreign travelers into the US, apps only someone's conservative/veteran grandfather would be caught using—these are disparate demographics to me.
If my initial impression to all of this information was "So what?" how would this article convince me that it's actually meaningful? Submissions like this aren't about discussing anything novel or critical about the subject matter (with the exception of the Huawei thing which is a missed opportunity from an editorial point of view). They are signal boosts to talk about bad government and technology in general.
I've spent enough of my morning trying to make actual sense of this story, that's not to say that it's not informative (albeit unsurprising), but the quality of the writing irrespective of whether its "readable" makes me question if the submission was popular because of its substance or because it's supposed to be a proxy for r/politics.
I remember when I was young seeing videos of North Korea, of audiences always giving rapt standing ovations and many people fake fainting, and I always thought "How dumb and stupid does everyone have to be to carry on this absurd, ridiculous charade."
What if the whole world population would have F-Y money enough for subsistence and would not have to perform the act of asskissing or complying? Not luxury but basic needs met alright, something like the basic income the democrats blocked during Nixon era(twice actually).
reply