> _An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything_
I think it might be just the opposite: convincing yourself of things relies on exploiting limits for which very intelligent people have much higher threshold they might as well not have them. When it comes to happiness, it’s kind of a superpower which I think very intelligent people just don’t have because it fights against their intelligence by definition. It’s also something that I think happens unconsciously.
It’s ironic, as you yourself provided a perfect example: a logic argument depending on unproven assumptions, if it lands in “convincing” yourself, exploits a limitation in accounting for the validity of the assumptions themselves (meaning: you believe it anyway). Assuming one could pick and choose the arguments (i.e., what to believe in) wouldn’t that trivially unlock happiness?
People choose to believe what they desire and all desire eventually leads to disappointment and dissatisfaction. So, no, even if you could choose to convince yourself of whatever you want you're still not going to be happy. Also, people tend to pick the worst case scenario as a defense mechanism in most cases.
If you really want to be happy you need to let go of your preferences; your desires and aversions.
I get the point of the article and it resonates with my general tendency to support more openness, but older and more cynical me wonders how much of this is a battle worth fighting or a self-serving argument from an harness developer.
I mean, the article says each of the points it is complaining about has “_a basic justification that's trivial for a provider to come up with, along with good arguments for why this is good for the user_“, which to me sounds like implying these are just bs to have people accept them, but is that actually the case?
For instance, this [0] was mentioned here a while ago, and based on that it seems pretty clear why one would choose not to provide the _thinking_ anymore…
> these are just bs to have people accept them, but is that actually the case?
I tried to outline that in my sibling comment[0], but I think the article also gives a good example in the "hidden searches" paragraph: There is really no good reason not to expose details about many of the builtin tools, or provide them as standalone services, other than protect their moat.
I don't think that "role confusion" attacks could be meaningful prevented by not showing reasoning traces. Prevention of reasoning traces is about as futile as prevention of system prompt leakage. And here you would just have to manage to exfiltrate a small number of reasoning traces per model family in order to distill the writing style of thinking traces.
“the most powerful AI agent file-editing tool in the world […] patent-pending”… tl;dr: turn tool calls into more structured loops, give it some fancy name and slop about it https://hic-ai.com/blog/tool-response-engineering
Apparently nobody cares. A few days ago I bumped-into and submitted this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48655747 . I thought given the general trust people seem to place in media files it would have raised a few eyebrows but it did not ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
I second the sentiment, it’s unbelievably annoying. Even more so when the suggested solution from the “support” appears to be “You can downgrade to a version before we introduced this bug”. I’m not even gonna try switching to that new crapware, I’m just going to change client altogether.
Thanks for the tip, instead of enduring any longer, i decided to downgrade, which was easier than I expected, and this old version works, doesn't have this bug.
Just delete the Outlook app from the Applications folder, and run the Outlook installer from version 16.109.3 (June 02, 2026) [1]. All data is there, no need for any backups or anything.
Then, delete (or rename) the Microsoft AutoUpdate App, which lives in:
/Library/Application Support/Microsoft/MAU2.0
Oh boy, this did not age well. Most cases of “extremely successful” people I can think of exhibit the opposite of these core principles: have no “knack” whatsoever, except not giving a shit about whatever they pretend to be their focus while only focusing on personal return; they contract clusterfucks of debts, just usually never end up having to repay them personally; very few of them even know what “going all in” means, they usually live easy while exploiting others to actually do anything; they have no integrity whatsoever, and they do not have to, since apparently demonstrating lack of it is no longer cause for being told by everyone to fuck off into oblivion anymore.
And yes, yes, of course there are good people out there too that just want (/need) money to get by, but it’s funny to read this and think about those with _lots_ of money
Indeed. This book strikes me as yet another "guide to making money" which was created in order to make money for the author. It is all just his opinion, without any evidence. One might do the exact opposite, and make money as well.
Yes Jeff Bezos was famously passionate about retail and Marc Benioff would build customer relationship management solutions using paper and glue as a young lad
As a counterpoint, there are plenty of people who are passionate about their hobbies and make no money on them at all. I have some doubts that there's a correlation between passion and money-making. Except, perhaps, that it helps to be passionate about money-making in order to be successful at it.
reply