> It's funny that American tech giants invented AI, because AI is going to unseat American tech giants.
Ah yes, let's ignore that 40 years of research done on neural networks and give all the credit instead to the tech giants that came in as soon as there was enough of a breakthrough to start making them useful in language tasks. Definitely the American tech giants and not the Canadian and international researchers who spent their lives building the foundations. /s
Well, a bunch of people on the world stage thought it would score good political points (and/or they thought opposing it would make them look bad with no upside because its a non binding vote). That doesn't mean the people who make and use maps thought it was a good idea. If anything, the fact this is coming from politicians instead of people who use/make maps is probably negative signal for it actually being adopted. If the people who actually use/make maps wanted this, they would just do it, they wouldn't wait for the UN to say something.
Well, the underlying thinking "only people I directly voted for can do things" is wrong. I guess you never directly voted for your minister of economy, or? In many countries people don't directly vote for the prime minister, chancellor etc.
The key term some people never learned in school is "direct democracy" vs. "indirect democracy".
Even many clubs, e.g. in Germany the ADAC, have systems where people vote for an assembly (or, in politics: a parliament). And then the assembly vote fot ehri CO (or, in politics, for their chancellor). Now, it can happen that this chancellor together with 26 other head of states is a member of the Europen Council (EUCO, one of the 7 bodies of the EU, what btw most people all the time intermingle). And that this EUCO now votes on their president.
In your logic, this presidency of the EUCO is then null and void. Because not directly elected by citizens of the EU.
In my logic, I realize that this position is removed from the people, but it still done by a democratic process. A multi-stage process, but still democratic. And that it still has some bearing.
Asking for the whole world population having an election on e.g. the UN Secretary General --- under the implication that only this would give representation --- is bogus.
Oh no Mr. Schurig. I never praised "direct vote" (that would even worsen it).
I implied instead that there is a crisis in representation.
(...You could be German and you have not noticed, in spite of all the vocal effort in the North? That and all the other similar signals clearly affecting current history.)
I'm Canadian. Canada represents me. They voted on this. That's how the world works. Sometimes my government is not the one I voted for and my interests are not represented, or sometimes my interests are not the majority in my country. That's life.
No one is forcing you to use the new map, you can keep your old map. No one will arrest you for it. Enjoy!
This question is nonsensical. Canada is not ONE identity. It's millions of people, hundred thousands of companies and organizations. Go and ask them individually.
Also, the UN voted to use this map for itself and suggested (!) that others should use it. It never said that everyone has to use that map. It actually said that this voting is "non-binding".
One can still note a poor decision based on its merits.
An equal area projection map is obviously valuable. But it's practically asinine to pick a projection that distorts land features when there are several equal area projections that do not.
Further, Ukraine had to abstain from this vote because they shoehorned in something ridiculous considering the official position of the UN members that Crimea is Ukraine [1], and Crimea is depicted as outside of Ukraine.
I have no idea if there are other hidden yet important changes, since there is hardly any commentary apart from size and shape.
No, the resolution doesn't include a map, it's purely about which projection to use so obviously it doesn't mention any land borders.
As best I can tell the Ukrainian ambassador saw the example map made by the Equal Earth creator in 2014 with its somewhat questionable choice in colouring Crimea and saw an opportunity for virtue signalling. Or maybe he really thought the vote was about that specific political map from 2014.
No, they did not find this. They speculated that in the future the tvs "could" do that and that there is precedent with other devices. But despite this being repeated over and over as fact, it is in fact not proven to be the case.
Yes, it's extremely troubling, and not constrained to tv manufacturers. We need some sort of legal overhaul to protect people from this sort of thing.
For example, I was looking at Bird scooters/e-bikes while travelling since they were the local provider of rentable bikes. I noticed a particularly aggressive EULA declaration in their app and decide to skim through the EULA. In it, they had language that stated that I gave them unlimited rights to my likeness and voice. So by clicking this EULA this company could then harvest any photos of me, interviews, what have you, clone my voice or likeness with AI, use it for ads or even sell it to others to use! Needles to say I uninstalled instead of agreeing.
But how many other things did I unknowingly sign to in these EULAs? It's genuinely crazy.
The big US labs are naively hoping that compute power will always be their moat. I strongly suspect they are dead wrong, and newer architectures will require vastly less training data and outperform the brute force approach of US labs.
Which is a shame because you can eat so well today you can easily skip the dead animal carcass. They couldn't really do that back then in many places with short growing seasons.
Why would you skip the dead animal? That is by far the best part of every meal.
PS don’t jump into the whole animal cruelty spiel. I’m aware and I agree, it’s just that I don’t care. Vegetarian food, aside from maybe the narrow slice with how the Indians prepare it, is completely unsatisfying and I’m OK with animals suffering as long as I can continue to have meat because it’s just so delicious. That being said, I would eagerly switch to lab grown meat if they can do it correctly.
Vegan food on the other hand is brain dead food. I mean that literally and metaphorically. Anecdotally every vegan I’ve met seems nutritionally deficient and slow. They also go out of their way to eat food aping meat and that stuff turns out to be the most chemically processed and unhealthy stuff you could possibly imagine.
India is the most populous country in the world so it's hardly a "narrow slice". Anyway, Italians and Mexicans are just as good with vegetables.
Even people who like steak grind some plant on it to make it taste good (pepper). Basically all interesting flavours come from plants. Meat just tastes of meat.
Yeah but India heavily uses dairy products to make up for the taste and protein deficiency. Vegetables are goddamn delicious but in a different way. I’ll eat vegetables all day but they are not nutritious enough and “satisfying” enough to complete the meal.
By the way, I’m sorry if this is all coming off pretty sharp, but I have what I think is a legitimate hate of veganism. I think it’s on par with the “health at every size” nonsense that people are trying to do where they are trying to normalize obesity. At least with them with GLP-1 they have found they don’t need to carry on with their delusion anymore, but vegans are still going strong.
India absolutely does not "heavily" use dairy. In fact, they use very very little. Ghee is the most common dairy based item but it's only used as an oil for frying.
> I’ll eat vegetables all day but they are not nutritious enough and “satisfying” enough to complete the meal.
You have some weird obsession with meat. I'm not vegan nor vegetarian but eat at least half my meals without meat. There are plenty of other sources of proteins and flavour comes from all over. Vegetables absolutely are the bigger source of flavour. Onions, hot peppers, various dried spices, garlics. Food would be bland as shit without vegetables.
They don’t switch it for you probably, that would be very bad. But the default for new users and orgs on the Team plan just changed. But they didn’t update the docs for a while which left me confused as I started my subscription after they switched but before they updated their docs.
> now there have been numerous projects posted on HN that are AI coded.
Yes, all of which are toy projects and get criticized every time they are posted. On actual serious projects, not someones pet home project, I've only seen "vibe coding" used in very low risk places like small UI components. And even then they are generally heavily tweaked after the fact.
My anecdotal personal experience seem to agree with the general sentiment I see here on HN. Some people or companies do it, but with generally heavy criticism.
Something Cherny said in early December last year is clearly not relevant anymore.
By late December he said: "100% of my contributions to Claude Code were written by Claude Code"[1]. That's production software shipping to millions of people.
Antirez's Dwarfstar is also mostly AI written:
> This software is developed with strong assistance from GPT 5.5, 5.6, Claude Fable and with humans leading the ideas, testing, and debugging. We say this openly because it shaped how the project was built. If you are not happy with AI-developed code, this software is not for you. [2]
I'm actually pretty shocked anyone would claim otherwise. In January 2026, sure, but the world has changed since then. Many, many places are doing 100% AI code now, and yes for production code. https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-writing-all-startup-code-...
Testing and debugging and designing is a huge part of writing software. If humans are doing that it's not AI entirely writing the software. That's why they in their own words said "strong assistance."
It is all very unevenly distributed. SaaS and general web is basically on auto mode.
A lot of infra is vibe coded nowadays too.
Even prototypes are contributing to the speed of software development. Many people vibe code throwaway dashboards around the main platform which gives a lot of insights.
Ah yes, let's ignore that 40 years of research done on neural networks and give all the credit instead to the tech giants that came in as soon as there was enough of a breakthrough to start making them useful in language tasks. Definitely the American tech giants and not the Canadian and international researchers who spent their lives building the foundations. /s
reply