This is normal in business. Now that tech dominates they use that market position to setup monopolies. If we had functional anti-trust laws then it wouldn't feel so dire. Allowing monopolies in a capitalist system is the worst economic policy since socialism.

Manufacturing consent is easier than ever. Look at how many Americans feel that immigrants are mostly violent criminals.

How many believe that?

Apparently around 1 in 3 Americans, according to this Monmouth Poll from last year: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthp...

"About 1 in 3 (32%) think that illegal immigrants are more likely than other Americans to commit violent crimes like rape or murder. This marks an increase in this view from prior polls (21% in 2019 and 17% in 2015)."

This is a similar but different statistic.

I suspect "close enough" is adequate here though :)

50%+

Have you some impressive evidence for that?

The only constant in this universe is "change" so what ideology can be more illogical than one that rejects change? We are about to learn this lesson again as a society.

Asylum seekers are here legally.

This is the problem.

But they are not illegal. That is dehumanizing.

Imagine how dumb the average person is. Half of them are even dumber than that. Less than half voted for Donald Trump!

-George Carlin

Which established dogma do you want to challenge and why?

Moreso 'question' than 'challenge'- but it seems like the idea that psychology is a hard science at all is sort of a baseline assumption, or dogma. This article goes into great detail on all sorts of issues in the field, but stops short of questioning whether or not the whole thing could even be classified as scientific. I'd argue that the reproducibility crisis throws that into question to some degree (though that crisis apparently extends into 'harder' sciences as well, so maybe not?)- And intuitively, human psychology just doesn't seem like something you can quantify, at least not to the level of granularity required by the scientific method. That is, unless you're measuring the activity of neurons, synapses, hormone levels, any physical measurable phenomena, to draw your conclusions- and I'm not sure how much of that is done in psychology as opposed to neuroscience

Psychology has always been considered a soft science.

The anti-trust case isn't about Google's LLM business.

I agree, and am trying to make that exact point to the person I replied to.

I love it when the top comments on a hacker news thread is justifying monopolies. Fuck economics right?

Do you think it's impossible to have a nuanced discussion about monopolies? Their net effect may be wholly negative while having some interesting aspects

Not impossible, but mostly impossible. You can discuss the interesting aspects of large corporations, but you can't really discuss them in a vacuum. The top level post about "big kahuna" companies comes across as an unambiguous defense of monopolies, not an attempt at nuanced conversation.

Not a participant in your back-and-forth, but the top level comment seems to be much more nuanced than your posts. Perhaps you could:

>”Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”

> "Split them up at your own (US) perils, not unlike killing own Golden Goose."

You should know 80% of Hacker News works for either Google or Facebook.

Honestly, it's disgusting.

Have these people even read the white papers that Google releases? They are mostly marketing pieces.

When systems and technologies are not publicly reproducible, why should scientists and (most) engineers care? I will not take Google at its word and would not recommend it to others.

The author has some interesting articles about the Ukrainian War.