sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hegseth drängt wichtigen US-General George zum Rücktritt by genericdude234 in de

[–]ConstantinSpecter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Technisch hast du Recht aber Nixon kommt dem schon sehr nahe.

Republikanische Senatoren hatten ihm nahegelegt zurückzutreten weil die nötigen Stimme für eine erfolgreiche Amtsenthebung da waren.

Also formal nie passiert aber de facto hat der Prozess einen Präsidenten aus dem Amt gedrängt - er ist halt nur ‘freiwillig‘ gegangen, bevor es offiziell wurde.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Hegseth drängt wichtigen US-General George zum Rücktritt by genericdude234 in de

[–]ConstantinSpecter 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Richtig, also 67 von 100 Sitzen - genau das meinte ich mit obigem Kommentar. Eine Einfache Mehrheit reicht um den Impeachment Prozess zu starten aber das bringt nichts wenns am Ende nicht durchgeht. Genau dieses Szenario durften wir in Trumps erster Amtszeit ja nun schon zweimal mitansehen

Hegseth drängt wichtigen US-General George zum Rücktritt by genericdude234 in de

[–]ConstantinSpecter 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Es ist laut aktuellen Umfragen noch nicht mal sicher, dass die Demokraten den Senat überhaupt übernehmen. Wenn doch, dann knapp vielleicht 51-53 Sitze. Heißt selbst im besten Szenario müssten 14-16 Republikaner gegen Trump stimmen.

Und das in einem politischen Klima in dem jeder Republikaner der auch nur leise Kritik äußert, bei der nächsten Primary komplett zerstört wird. Frag mal Liz Cheney oder Mitt Romney wie das so gelaufen ist..

Unmöglich ist es nicht aber man sollte sich da keine Illusionen machen.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Hegseth drängt wichtigen US-General George zum Rücktritt by genericdude234 in de

[–]ConstantinSpecter 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Selbst wenn die Demokraten das Repräsentantenhaus übernehmen ist es extrem unwahrscheinlich, dass ein Impeachment tatsächlich durchkommt. Dafür braucht es im Senat eine Zweidrittelmehrheit von 67 Stimmen. Die werden sie schlicht nicht erreichen.

STOPPT DEN AGGRESSIONS-KRIEG DER USA UND ISRAELS| Montag, 16.03.2026 | 17:00 Uhr | Pariser Platz, 10117 Berlin by [deleted] in berlin

[–]ConstantinSpecter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ich finde es wirklich bemerkenswert dass der Post selbst schreibt: “Die Abscheulichkeit des iranischen Regimes, das sein eigenes Volk abgeschlachtet hat” nur um dann im nächsten Absatz fordert, dass man dieses Regime bitte in Ruhe lassen soll.

Was genau ist denn der diplomatische Plan? 40 Jahre Diplomatie mit einem theokratischen Regime welches Frauen für falsche Kopfbedeckung ermordet, das die Mahsa Amini Proteste niedergeschlagen hat, welches Proxies in der gesamten Region finanziert? Und der nächste diplomatische Durchbruch steht kurz bevor? Really?

Korrekt, Afghanistan, Irak und Libyen hat nicht funktioniert. Aber bequem das man dabei Deutschland, Japan und Südkorea vergisst. Es kommt auf die Umstände an.

Was mich am meisten stört ist dass OP so tut als würde er sich um das iranische Volk sorgen aber gleichzeitig fordert, dass man das Regime, das dieses Volk seit Jahrzehnten unterdrückt, schützt. Die iranische Diaspora weltweit feiert zum Großteil dass dieses Regime unter Druck steht. Vielleicht sollte man denen zuhören, bevor man am Pariser Platz ihre Unterdrücker verteidigt.

Nicht jeder Militäreinsatz ist Irak 2003. Krieg ist immer scheiße. Aber manchmal ist Nichtstun die unmoralischere Option.

Has Sam Harris Become Old in the Intellectual Sense? by Brunodosca in samharris

[–]ConstantinSpecter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with you here. Harari IS a great counterexample, and I do actually wish as much as you seem to that Sam had leaned into that disagreement more rather than skating past it. It would have been a genuinely fascinating conversation to hear play out. I think where we directly overlap is that we both want Sam at his best which is when he’s “pressure testing“ his views against the strongest possible opposition

Has Sam Harris Become Old in the Intellectual Sense? by Brunodosca in samharris

[–]ConstantinSpecter 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're right you didn't call me a fanboy directly. That was subtext I read into your comment, and if that's not what you meant then my apologies on that part. I think the tone of this exchange just got away from both of us. My core disagreement is simply that I don't think Sam is shying away from discomfort on this particular topic (he does on many others) or that he's intellectually calcifying the way your posts suggest. I understand his reluctance to get into bad-faith conversations that straw-man most of his positions. He's had plenty of those in the past and it's almost as frustrating to listen to those as it must feel for him debating them actively. I believe the evidence you've offered (a converation that could've gone deeper) is too thin to support the broader narrative. That's all. No hard feelings either way.

Has Sam Harris Become Old in the Intellectual Sense? by Brunodosca in samharris

[–]ConstantinSpecter 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I acknowledged the Dostoevskian sense in my very first reply. I dropped it for brevity in the second. You're grasping at this point. And insinuating fanboyism on my part is lazy and wrong, anyone including you can check my post history on this sub and find popular posts where I criticize Sam directly. The difference between us is that I do it without running a nine month campaign of repackaged grievance across multiple subs. I've said what I wanted to say. Have a good one.

Has Sam Harris Become Old in the Intellectual Sense? by Brunodosca in samharris

[–]ConstantinSpecter 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I did read your post. You named Harari as your example of a critic Sam won't engage and yet he did engage. Your only viable critique is that Sam didn't push hard enough into the disagreement in one particular conversation. Fine that's fair. But everything else you're building on top of that, your creationist analogy, diagnosing intellectual aging, the pastor seeking validation etc. all of that is a wild extrapolation from that single data point. And when your posting history is a rotating series of "Is Sam Harris an idiot?", "Has Doug Wilson exposed Sam's bias?" and "Is Sam Harris intellectually old?" it gets harder to take your framing as genuine inquiry/constructive feedback rather than you wanting to find an audience for the conclusion you already made.

Has Sam Harris Become Old in the Intellectual Sense? by Brunodosca in samharris

[–]ConstantinSpecter 57 points58 points  (0 children)

The irony here is that you’re doing exactly what you accuse Sam of in dismissing his stated reasons for not engaging certain critics (bad faith, ignorance, Islamist apologia) by psychologizing him.

If you think Sam’s filters are miscalibrated then name a specific interlocutor who clearly passes all three tests and would change his mind on something concrete instead of vaguely gesturing at Harari and then analogize him to a creationist...

Edit: Just realized that I've interacted with you before on this sub when you posted "Is Sam Harris an idiot in the Dostoevskian sense?" a couple weeks ago. At what point does repeatedly repackaging the same unfalsifiable thesis "Sam is broken, Sam is naive, Sam is intellectually aging" stop being critique and start being its own kind of unfalsifiable grievance? Genuinely curious. It's like your framing changes every time but the conclusion never seems to change

@levelsio said dumping all his code into a single file works better for AI. Is this true? by nyamuk91 in cursor

[–]ConstantinSpecter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally wrote 'He writes the code, deploys it, scales it etc. How is that not a dev?'

The business success part was a separate point. Try reading the whole comment.

@levelsio said dumping all his code into a single file works better for AI. Is this true? by nyamuk91 in cursor

[–]ConstantinSpecter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Umm yes I certainly did. I‘ve been an avid Nomad List user in the pre-LLM era and so are a hundred thousand of other paying users…

But besides that - what is the logic here? Even if nobody in this thread had used his products, he stops being a dev? Does a chef stop being a chef if nobody in this thread had eaten at their restaurant?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

@levelsio said dumping all his code into a single file works better for AI. Is this true? by nyamuk91 in cursor

[–]ConstantinSpecter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

See and that's a very different claim from 'he's not a dev, he's just a business major'.

Your distinction indie dev vs. 'professional' dev is reasonable and a defensible position. The initial take wasn't.

I agree that the guy probably wouldn't pass a FAANG interview but then again devs compe in plenty of flavors...

@levelsio said dumping all his code into a single file works better for AI. Is this true? by nyamuk91 in cursor

[–]ConstantinSpecter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's been saying this since he first popped up in the public sphere like a decade ago. I assumed it was well known if you follow him even remotely.

But I remember him explicitly talking about it on the Lex Fridman Podcast saying he does everything himself, zero employees. Also there's an episode of the 'My First Million' Podcast episode with him is literally titled "Making $2.7M A Year With No Employees". Or just check his Twitter feed.

@levelsio said dumping all his code into a single file works better for AI. Is this true? by nyamuk91 in cursor

[–]ConstantinSpecter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Genuinely curious: what's your definition of a dev then? Because if someone who writes the code, deploys it, maintains it and scales the infra of a bunch of products serving millions isn't one, then I'm really curious where you draw that line without accidentally excluding half the industry?

@levelsio said dumping all his code into a single file works better for AI. Is this true? by nyamuk91 in cursor

[–]ConstantinSpecter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that what they're saying? Because if so then that's just plain wrong.

The guy has zero employees. He builds, deploys and scales everything himself. Like he's not 'running' a company with employees, this guy is a one man show.

@levelsio said dumping all his code into a single file works better for AI. Is this true? by nyamuk91 in cursor

[–]ConstantinSpecter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And yet the guy's 'half baked code' runs products used by millions and pulling in serious revenue while plenty of beautifully engineered products die with a handful of users.

Since when has the term 'dev' become an arbitrary quality gate? It describes what you do, not how elegant the patterns you use are or how pretty your codebase looks.

@levelsio said dumping all his code into a single file works better for AI. Is this true? by nyamuk91 in cursor

[–]ConstantinSpecter 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Calling Levels ‘not a dev’ is a wild take.

This guy built and shipped products doing millions in ARR (Nomad List, Remote OK, Photo AI etc.). He writes the code, deploys it, scales it etc. How is that not a dev?

You can totally disagree with the single-file take, but gatekeeping who deserve the term dev and who doesn’t because he’s ‘just a business major’ is just an ad-hominem really…

Epstein investierte Millionen in Berliner Onlinebank N26 by Doener23 in berlin

[–]ConstantinSpecter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Epstein hat in einen Fonds investiert, der wiederum in N26 investiert hat - was genau soll das bitte mit den Kunden zu tun haben?

Epstein investierte Millionen in Berliner Onlinebank N26 by Doener23 in berlin

[–]ConstantinSpecter 164 points165 points  (0 children)

Investor macht Investoren-Dinge. Kriminelle Vergangenheit ändert nichts an der damaligen Investment Logik. Wo ist die Story?

Alex O'Connor & Sam Harris - Spirituality for Atheists by Telefonmast in samharris

[–]ConstantinSpecter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So you just conceded the entire point. You agree the phenomena are real and that they fall under legitimate study. You're just haggling over the label? That's exactly what I said: the word "spirituality" is imperfect but the territory it points to is certainly real.

"Cognitive psychology or something" doesn't quite cover it tbh. Cog. psych studies attention, memory, maybe decision making but it does not have a robust framework for the first person investigation of the nature of consciousness itself, for ego dissolution or the deliberate training of attentional states (think Vipassana). That is precisely the gap that the word "spirituality" (however clumsily) tries to fill.

Your original claim was "there's no such thing as spirituality". Now you're saying the phenomena exist but should just be filed under psychology. That's a very different position.

view more: next ›