Depends on the harness and the requirements right? It will infer meaning that regresses to the mean but you can likely feed it the requirements if you built the harness right and thought things through.
Everything A16Z does everyday looks, feels and sounds like a scam. Why work in real pharma when you can sell peptides and the fashionable trend of the day to podcast bros, the same ones they were trying to sell on crypto?
Matheus in this forum you're literally the only person who believes this and who feels that this is worse than Bolsonaro having literally planned a coup.
The point is, you really need to sit down, examine your life and get help. You have spent years repeating and amplifying debunked Brazilian right wing propaganda here. You refuse to see and accept evidence when it's presented to you and turn round and accuse others of bias.
At some point, you cross over from being misguided to an embarrassment to yourself.
There are some other people on HN that this comment applies to. I doubt it will make any difference though but think you for putting it this eloquently.
The person who follows the crowd will usually go no further than the crowd. Those who walk alone are likely to find themselves in places no one has ever been before.
No, it is really not. I have no horse in the race and know little about the politics in Brazil. But if anyone frames political competition as a right or left wing debate, it is very, very likely horseshit.
Another poster linked to your previous comment regarding the rainforest.
What's your thought process behind your comment:
"If I had a button that would burn that entire jungle down and replace it with a top tier national semiconductor industry, I'd press it twice."
Given the following facts:
- Climate change is real
- The Amazon stores around 15–20 years of global CO2 emissions. Burning it down would release all that.
- It maintains the rainfall system needed by farms and general Brazilian economy
- There is so much biodiversity in the Amazon and so much unexplored. By protecting it, it preserves biological resources and research relevant to food and medicine.
- Many indigenous people live there (2 million?). So it's OK to just destroy their home?
Any why do you need to burn down the Amazon to build a Brazilian semi-conductor industry?
I think it's clear, if Bolsonaro Jr would have won, he'd continue his father's approach to it, i.e. continue with deforestation and loosen environmental rules.
So, this is one of very few of your comments where I can get a glimpse of reason: you have a good point here, the rest of the world telling Brazil to protect its natural resources is hypocrisy of the finest grade. First they clearcut their own forests, make lots of money on raiding the rest of the world and then when the consequences of all that pillaging catch up with them they start telling countries like Brazil that they really should protect the rainforest, 'for the good of the planet'.
That said: they too have a point, they've learned the hard way that this is going to end very bad, not just for Brazil but for the whole continent and possibly even the world. And to that extent they should compensate Brazil year on year for maintaining the Amazon as it is today, to make sure that there is no downside to doing the right thing.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with Joe Jackson, he has a beautiful little bit in 'the obvious song':
"There was a man in the jungle
Trying to make ends meet
Found himself one day with an axe in his hand
When a voice said "Buddy can you spare that tree
We gotta save this world-starting with your land."
It was a rock 'n' roll millionaire from the USA
Doing three to the gallon in a big white car
And he sang and he sang 'till he polluted the air
And he blew a lot of smoke from a Cuban cigar"
And that's it in a nutshell. So what Brazil should do - and I'm not kidding - is to hold the Amazon hostage. If the part of the world that wants it preserved is really serious they should pay up, and Brazil can use the proceeds to improve the lives of Brazilians. That at least would take a part of the sting out. As for the high value industries, the space program, the well equipped military and the nuclear weapons: those are all things with flip sides as well, and some of those flip sides only become apparent once you go down that route. I think a part of that could be realized steering clear from the downsides, but be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
How can you call me unreasonable? It's absolutely possible that I'm wrong, and I have no trouble accepting that. I've done so in this thread. I don't appreciate the suggestions that I'm not reasoning. People cited the Amazon thing specifically to discredit me, and it did horrify people, but it led to interesting discussion and even some common ground when people directly asked me about my position. My other posts should not be any different. Ask yourself: is it not possible that I have a point? If not, why?
Brazil does have an Amazon Fund, but I don't think it's enough. While we worry about the Amazon, the US puts another century of technological advantage between us. The "Amazon is important to the world" rhetoric has historically been interpreted as an overture to invasion of our territory. Keeping hostages like that requires credible force projection. If the US invades this country because of the Amazon, it'd be another Venezuela.
I'm not at all unsympathetic to climate concerns, but I do rank them well below the security and prosperity my country. Brazil needs to be strong and rich first before it can afford the luxury to worry about such things.
I think it's a false premise to begin with. Protecting your natural resources and rich biodiversity doesn't mean Brazilians have to suffer.
But thanks for clarifying your comment and position.
I get that Lula isn't great, politics is hard. But from the outside it looks like a small majority of Brazilians have voted to say 'not another Bolsonaro'. He would have probably continued like his father and fostered closer ties to Trump and borrowing a few tactics from his playbook, i.e. definitely not good for the average Joe like us.
Good for corporations? Yes - hence why Meta and co tried to push Bolsonaro.
> But thanks for clarifying your comment and position.
Thank you for listening in good faith.
I supported Bolsonaro because I saw his election as the only possible way to defeat the supreme court judges, who I believe are dictators. To me this was a priority that overrode all other concerns.
I do not at all share his alignment with Trump and Israel, and especially not his privatization efforts. I'd rather Brazil align itself with China. I understand people's rejection of Bolsonaro, and even agree. The very first comment in this thread came from me, and I expressed this opinion through it:
I can't give an opinion on the supreme court situation, since I don't know the details.
But the scenario you outlined sounds complicated.
In the end I guess people voted for the person who they think would cause the least damage to the country. That's why the last minute turn out of voters, since they saw Bolsonaro was about to win?
Voting for Bolsonaro would get rid of those supreme court judges, but you'd also get all the downsides with it, i.e. probably have a new leader using the Trump playbook and his father's playbook. And look how 2 years of Trump turned out. Him and his family and friends got immensely rich, increased corruption, while democratic institutions have been dismantled and cost of living has risen immensely.
Or continue with Lula and get marginal improvements but the supreme court stays as is. According to reports I read under Lula poverty and hunger rates have fallen, unemployment rates fell, Economy has grown (but has slowed now), Amazon protection has improved.
I think where he hasn't hit the mark yet is cost of living, but that's a problem all over the world. And that's why it's key to understand it's not left vs right, it's normal folks vs the owner class / monopolistic corporations.
It's an terrible situation. Neither of the candidates were what I wanted. In the end I chose to vote against the supreme court.
Both of them would have damaged the country in different ways.
I believe the economy would improve under Bolsonaro, but he did want to sell off national industries and resources to foreign countries which is fatal in the long term. Historically speaking, aligning oneself with the US is also just bad in general. They don't have friends, they have interests. China is a much better partner.
Lula will continue to spend lavishly on benefits for everybody, and eventually the costs are going to spiral out of control. His last term set records in government spenditure and tax revenue. This country exports commodities, and there is no real industrialization effort in place, there isn't much room for hope here. I believe the number one factor that held this country together during his last term was the independent central bank which, as always, set monstrous interest rates, over 12%, despite his efforts to lower it. Inflation was still strong even after that. The people are accruing more and more debt, defaulting on debts. Just bad signs all over the place. The worst possible sign is the fact that Lula's is absolutely loved by the banks. They raked in record profits in the last few years.
You obviously have a strong opinion about what's good for your country and I'm not trying to tell you what's true or not about your own country and its political situation.
But I personally wouldn't trust people like Bolsonaro, we've seen how this turned out in other countries, like the US, Hungary as some examples. Luckily Hungary managed to get rid of Orban after many years. People like that don't feel any civic duty to their country and happily sell out their own people in order to gain more power and enrich themselves.
I don't know whether Lula is a net positive for Brazil or not, but putting my global citizen hat on, I appreciate that Lula is trying to protect the Amazon from greedy corporations.
And since you're a doctor, maybe you can appreciate how important the Amazon is for Brazil and our biosphere as a whole. Not just for the current generation but also future generations.
Since the Amazon is important for the whole world, Brazil should setup a fund for protecting the Amazon and allow people to donate to it and make it transparent how that money is spent. I'd happily donate to that fund, so it's not all on Brazilian tax payers.
Destroying something that took millions of years to grow and evolve for the sake of semiconductor plants and related industry is short sighted. Once those species of plants, fungi or animals have been lost, we won't be able to get them back.
But again, you don't need to destroy the Amazon to build a rich and vibrant semiconductor industry. I think Brazilians are smarter than that ; )
That's quite a shocking comment. I was willing to give that poster the benefit of the doubt, but saying it's OK to burn down the entire Amazon rainforest is quite something.
Says the guy whose comments are magically upvoted 6 times, every single comment. I don't know who you have to pay to get that unfair advantage, but I've seen several prominent users have this privilege (like @pjmlp x9). Also the opposite, users who are instantly downvoted on every comment. I'm guessing there are rings of puppet users who automatically upvote users such as yourself to amplify their opinion.
I have made over 60 comments in this thread, and only 2 have a score over 6. Most are between 0 and 2, several have gone all the way down to -4 and some have been straight up flagged to death and won't even show up unless you've configured HN accordingly.
If there's an upvoting ring here, they're doing a terrible job.
Oh I'm sorry about that, I must have been mistaken. I'd remove the comment if I could. I better stop reading political discussions on this site, as it's ruining my mental health with anger and divisiveness. It's kind of ironic that I falsely accused you of cheating in a thread about the Brazil election in which there were also false accusations (as well as true ones, it seems). My bad, please don't take it personally.
Brazil isn't alone in neither option being good. The US has their own (pro-bolsonaro, as fate would have it) supreme court enabled god-king at the moment.
Lula may well be guilty of corruption, but Bolsonaro (senior) isn't in it for wider Brazil either. I'm not trying to preach disillusionment, but in 2026 in most of the heavily polarised countries, if we start from a position that they are both acting in pure unadulterated self-interest we'll at least not have blinkers on with respect to the saviour fascist "says what everyone is thinking" strongman, or the current polished establishment status quo spokesman, etc.
That maybe you should take a deep breath and consider that your views have been clouded by a deeply corrupt bigot with ties to organized crime that has used the last decade to manipulate people into thinking he is "the savior" and "a true patriot" that will essentially make "Brazil great again" with a suck-ass motto "Deus, Pátria e Família" taken straight out of 1930s flavor of fascism while inciting the population into dividing themselves and constantly making ploys in order to take people's eyes away from him while he performs his wrongdoings with the means of every conceived vile strategy straight out of the same playbook Trump uses?
This is the Bolsonaro I know. I'm here to kindly ask you to free your mind from the shackles of his vile social network and see for yourself what he truly is, including seemingly innocuous "family" whatsapp groups and so on.
You seem to think I'm some kind of Bolsonaro loyalist. I'm not.
I don't think Bolsonaro is a savior. I think he is a traitor to his country and to everybody who ever supported him.
I think that if he had actually had balls, he would have actually attempted a coup. Then he would have either won outright or gone down fighting, and his little prison term would have actually been warranted. What he did instead was hop on a plane to the USA like a rat and let my fellow countrymen take the fall for him. His subsequent arrest was predictable, and I didn't feel sorry for him. I don't even defend him against the coup accusations. My position is that the supreme court enacted its own silent coup in 2019 and usurped all power. His coup would merely be a counter to the supreme court's own coup.
I also don't generally disagree with people when they criticize the Bolsonaro family's calls for sanctions against Brazil as a political maneuver. That is treason. I celebrated the Magnitsky sanctions against the supreme court judges, not the ones Trump enacted against the whole country.
My general position is anti-supreme court. You can find me temporarily aligned with Bolsonaro for the purposes of defeating the influence of the supreme court, an effort that clearly failed as of today. You won't find me defending his plans to privatize and sell off the country to the USA and Israel.
There is exactly one politician which represented me: Dr. Enéas Carneiro. He's dead, and is not at all similar to Bolsonaro. I suggest you read about him if you want to understand what I actually think.
I've also been drawing uncomfortably close to the extreme left wing party PCO. Inexplicably, they share many of the viewpoints that I express here. They too are shunned by the "traditional" left that Lula represents, for the same reasons as yours. Pretty wild.
> inciting the population into dividing themselves
Lula's the one who pioneered the politics of polarization in this country. He feeds off Bolsonarism as much as Bolsonarism feeds off him.
> his vile social network
> "family" whatsapp groups and so on
I participate in exactly zero of such channels. HN is the only forum where I post my political viewpoints, and only on Brazil threads. I don't talk about politics with family members at all.
Would seem reasonable for hedge funds to devise a pipeline of tools specifically made to be taken advantage of by LLMs that do goal-based strategy at scale.
If anything it shows how little you know about feminism. Feminists have pointed out the issues in education gap and violence since a good 50 years by now, they just don't take it as their most pressing causes.
It's amazing that an activist group that actually shows far more awareness of the systemic issues that affect all genders is being held to an impossibly high standard when no "masculinist" group or whatever non-existant equivalent is out there doesn't even care in the first place.
The article has nothing to do with the literal specific meaning of one word and everything to do with how people consume and relate to climate change messaging. That's not "words", and it actually requires a good deal more thinking.
Well marketing evidently moves a huge amount of the populance and it requires very few but extremely well-placed phrases and slogans to work so yeah. You just need to move a small fraction of the voting population to shift the political panorama.
reply