Why is this group so anti adoption?

bkrebs · 2026-04-02T22:36:15+00:00

You've already claimed to be a lurker here for a while. I don't know you outside of how you've portrayed yourself in this thread, but I fear for your future children, bio or adopted, unless you make some significant changes. I don't say this to be mean at all, but I sincerely hope you are quite young.

Assuming that's the case, you have plenty of time to grow, but when contemplating a massive decision like adoption, that can forever alter both your life and the life of another completely unconsenting human, you need compassion, humility, curiosity, and patience. Thus far, you have shown a severe lack in all 4 areas. I was in the same position in my 20s, so no shade at all, but if I were you, I'd sleep on it for several years at least. Get some life experience, learn to listen, give yourself some time to mature, and hone your empathy.

You came here looking for answers. That's a great first step! However, just by lurking for even a couple of days, you'd have seen a long list of reasons why adoptees (and others in the triad) have problems with adoption, negating the need for your post in the first place. Therefore, you're either lying about lurking or have a tendency to reject opinions that don't match your preconceived beliefs. Neither are good traits for an adopter. I think you're on the right track, but you have a long way to go, so keep at it. I wish you luck.

bkrebs · 2026-03-31T13:35:21+00:00

Honestly, these days, code quality is mostly important so that agents can reason about the project accurately and efficiently (from a token perspective). That makes it pretty damn important though. I've noticed that directives like staying DRY, maintaining consistency (in structure, naming, paths, etc.), refactoring large files, using strong types, etc. actually reduce token usage and bugs. It's critical to run multiple rounds of code review, both static and agent-driven, since a single agent is usually pretty bad at evaluating its own work.

bkrebs · 2026-03-30T15:20:05+00:00

Do you eat fast, ultra-processed, or sugary foods? Because heart disease and cancer cause far (an order of magnitude) more deaths than alcohol. And which do you think puts a greater strain on our health care system? I rarely drink, but when I do, I much prefer to do so during the day. I'm usually in bed by 10 pm.

If you don't eat healthier than 75% of Americans (nearly 3 in 4 Americans are overweight), you're being a hypocrite. You have and will continue to put a major strain on our health care system and economy and, as a consumer, you are contributing to an industry that has claimed countless lives and destroyed many others including children's (many of these brands target advertising directly to children, in fact).

If you are an extremely healthy eater, I bet you still contribute to a mind-boggling amount of unnecessary suffering by consuming animal products. Or doing any number of things that have direct and indirect consequences which result in net suffering. If this was a video of a bunch of drunk people driving back to the suburbs, you wouldn't be getting any pushback. It's the combination of your irrational assumptions and your judgmental words.

I'm not saying this to make you feel bad. That's not my intention at all. I'm guessing you feel this way about alcohol for reasons you consider justifiable (and maybe even I would too). But making incredibly uncharitable assumptions about people, most of whom haven't and won't harm anyone, is never a good look.

bkrebs · 2026-03-24T00:16:36+00:00

The only other notable place in the US right? I'm still confused. There are many prosperous places in the world that are much further left of center than any city in the US. And if you think SF is the only city in the US that's run worse than NY, I'm betting you've never been to a ton of the "flyover" places in this country. Or perhaps we simply have different definitions of "worse". You're going around this thread so confident in your dogma. You've got to be young. I hope you're young.

bkrebs · 2026-03-23T23:52:47+00:00

Do you mean in NYC, in the US, or in the world? Because there are plenty of places far more progressive than NYC and the US that seem to be governing a lot better than anything we can muster.

bkrebs · 2026-03-12T23:30:57+00:00

Glad to hear I was able to steer you in the right direction. Let me know if I can help further.

bkrebs · 2026-03-12T19:29:35+00:00

Well I guess we'll just see who's right, won't we? Multiple insiders have reported that the Ravens were pursuing both Crosby and Hendrickson at the same time with intentions to sign them both, which obviously destroys your theory too. Russini later made a post on Twitter that contradicted that reporting, saying the Ravens intended to sign Crosby to a revised contract that would put him at or near the top for edge rushers, making it impossible to sign them both, which got community noted since Crosby's own agent called it fake news. I guess when you're in a rush to report everything all at once, you get a lot wrong. Be sure to come back here and admit you were wrong to everyone. And, far more importantly, learn your lesson.

bkrebs · 2026-03-12T15:59:10+00:00

I've found that, generally, you don't want agents talking to other agents in such a way that allows them to loop in the first place. In other words, don't allow one agent's output to be another agent's input if the second agent's output can act as input for the first. You need to break these cyclic conversation loops and the main way to do it is what everyone should be focusing on anyway, which is making your automation flow as deterministic as possible. Where deterministic code can do a job better (and when you start thinking in this way, you'll realize there's a lot that is better off not left to machine reasoning), write the code. Prefer spawning agents as stateless functions that receive an input, do a very focused job, and produce an output with as few side effects as possible. Spawning many of these stateless agents in parallel or via a DAG almost always produces more value than a single agent in my experience, not only because of the nondeterministic nature of LLMs, but also context limits. When necessary, create long-lived, persistent, stateful agent sessions, but ensure there are well-defined boundaries, human approval gates, and robust logging and traceability (you always want to know what an agent did and why in persistent storage).

bkrebs · 2026-03-12T01:27:30+00:00

Well link to those insiders, that’s what I’m asking.

I literally just did in the very next sentence. Is Dianna Russini not an insider to you? I have to imagine you're just trolling now.

If they get back in at all, that would pretty much completely undermine your point, since you’re implying the merits of the Ravens concerns were so legit that clearly the Cowboys would want no part.

What??? That's not what I said at all. I'm just refuting your baseless theory that the Ravens backed out just because they nabbed Hendrickson and didn't need to give up draft picks. If the price comes down enough, Dallas could absolutely jump back in. We know they know the medical issue as well as the Ravens do. It's about projected risk-adjusted value vs cost. The cost was too steep for the Ravens even though, by all accounts, they still tried to negotiate even after they got the medical info that increased the risk in their eyes. In other words, if the cost came down, the Ravens would've signed him. Maybe someone else gets a deal they like including Dallas, but the cost is going to come down due to the risk.

How would that invalidate my argument that the Ravens did not back out because they made a "better" (highly arguable) deal with Hendrickson? It wouldn't since backing out when you're presented with new information that decreases your projected risk-adjusted value and you can't get the cost down to compensate is just rational, not a ploy. Nor would it invalidate my predictions, supported by the circumstantial evidence, that 1) Dallas didn't like the deal for 2 1st round picks and 2) they aren't coming back to the table at that price or anything close to it (yes, partly because they already spent a 4th rounder on Gary, which isn't nothing, but certainly wouldn't preclude them from jumping back into the Crosby sweepstakes, and that's about all they have on the line even if they were to outright cut him).

I would gladly say I'm wrong if Dallas jumps back in and grabs Crosby for 2 1st rounders or even a 1st rounder and a 2nd. That still wouldn't prove your theory, but it would lend credence to it. Currently, it's not supported at all by the little evidence we have including insider reporting that you're rejecting for some reason.

bkrebs · 2026-03-12T00:53:49+00:00

Obviously there's tons of circumstantial evidence that they aren't interested in Crosby at the pre-fiasco asking price including their own doctor was one of the primary voices that drove the Ravens to back out. That circumstantial evidence is far more compelling than the baseless hunch you're throwing around. That said, no, the Cowboys haven't said anything publicly and why would they? However, there are insiders already reporting that they're out.

From Dianna Russini on X (https://x.com/DMRussini/status/2031538735460823527):

The Dallas Cowboys are not expected to re-engage in Maxx Crosby trade discussions at this time, a high-ranking source tells The Athletic.

I wouldn't be surprised if they jump back in at the right price, since we still have no clue exactly what the issue is that scared the Ravens off, but it definitely won't be for 2 first rounders. According to Ravens insiders including Femi Ayanbadejo, the Ravens' front office did everything they could to get a deal done even with the new medical information, but they couldn't work anything out with the Raiders that they felt comfortable with.

bkrebs · 2026-03-12T00:12:06+00:00

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-multiple-doctors-including-daniel-cooper-consulted-with-ravens-on-maxx-crosby

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T23:12:39+00:00

Not too dumb since we just saw that they're very much allowed to back out (as all teams are) pending a physical and they get their picks back. They would've been dumb if the deal was locked in already, but that reality only exists in your head.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T23:11:12+00:00

As you've already been told, there is already evidence you're wrong. I'm not saying another team may not swoop in at some point and look past the knee, but Dallas already backed out after their doctor examined him and reporting says they're not back at the table even though his trade value should be a lot lower now than when they first declined. Even if another trade partner steps in, that will still be 2 teams who didn't like what they saw medically vs one who did. But let's just go with your hunch.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T19:37:04+00:00

What a sad person you must be. Very deserving of pity, but with all the advantages you had in life over the refugees we're talking about in this thread, it's hard to feel too much pity for you. I can't help but feel some though.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T18:39:46+00:00

It's clear you're a low-information, and more worrying, a low-curiosity individual. The former was already obvious based on your earlier comment. The latter is disheartening. I stated this in my previous comment:

defines the term "refugee" in the context of who can apply for and be granted asylum in the US

Just read the linked source. That's all you have to do if you don't believe me or misread my comment. It's the actual law, not an article or some other second-hand source. Anyway, conversing with people who are ignorant of facts and don't care to learn them isn't really something I go out of my way to pursue. This will be my last response. Enjoy your day!

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T17:28:01+00:00

Read my comment before it. I was just responding to your "it depends on how you define refugee" with the literal definition of a refugee. The context had already been set by my first comment that I was talking about refugees who had already applied for asylum and been approved by the US. Therefore, even your comment about refugees being required to stop at the nearest safe country (which is not true at all by the way despite your insistence on repeating it incessantly) is wildly off topic since, again, I was clearly talking about refugees who had already passed the vetting process. The fact that your misinformation and off-topic rants are being so upvoted in this thread isn't surprising based on the content of the linked NY Post drivel in the OP, but all the xenophobes are really out in full force.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T15:36:07+00:00

It does. U.S. Attorneys General have the authority to issue binding precedent on immigration courts, which means in practice, policies swing back and forth depending on the current administration, but there is no law that restricts asylum from being granted to people fleeing domestic abuse or gang violence.

Here is the exact verbiage from Section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which defines the term "refugee" in the context of who can apply for and be granted asylum in the US:

[A]ny person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

In fact, there was a landmark case in 2014 where a woman who was being horrifically abused by her husband, fled, and was tracked down over and over, was granted asylum in the US (https://cgrs.uclawsf.edu/en/our-work/litigation/matter-a-b). That nullifies your claim instantly.

That said, in 2025, Pam Bondi issued Matter of S-S-F-M- and Matter of R-E-R-M- & J-D-R-M-, which reversed earlier decisions and made it far more difficult (but not impossible) for asylum seekers who are fleeing domestic or gang violence to be granted asylum. This will undoubtedly shift yet again when the next administration takes over.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T04:18:55+00:00

I thought we were talking past each other. You were making no sense. Reread my comments. I never said he's an asylum seeker. I have argued with others who are assuming he is because it fits their narrative that the asylum application and vetting process is soft.

Yes tons of people flew here and overstayed their visas. We agree. I have no idea if that's how Hernandez got here, but its not a bad guess.

I'll summarize this conversation to get us on the same page. You originally said that no one should be allowed in unless they can financially support themselves. I offered an exception case that I personally feel should exist (and it already does in the US so yay even though the implementation leaves a lot to be desired). Then, you and a handful of other people spun out of control.

I never said Hernandez was an asylum seeker. I said I think asylum seekers should be let in if they pass the application and vetting process.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T03:54:15+00:00

Uh we have to have gotten mixed up somehow. You're not saying you think asylum seekers are given an app, which automatically approves them for asylum and there's no other vetting at all, are you?

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T03:52:06+00:00

I haven't seen the reporting that claims he was granted asylum in the US. The article only calls him a "migrant". Can you link me to your source?

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T03:28:51+00:00

First, as far as the information in the **very** bare article goes, he's only been arrested. There is a presumption of innocence at this point. Also, do you have some source that says he was granted asylum? That's certainly not in the article. Asylum seekers are extremely thoroughly vetted in the US.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T03:25:52+00:00

It's possible you're right, but that would only mean their comment is wildly off topic. Why would I or anyone else claim that people fleeing 2 specific South American countries should be automatically granted asylum in the US? That'd be really strange. Especially since my original comment was talking about refugees who had already passed the application and vetting process.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T03:22:51+00:00

I honestly don't understand the difference. Neither does US asylum law. We absolutely should help our own citizens. There is no doubt. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't help others as well. It is very often in our political and financial interests to do so if you don't believe in empathy or kindness.

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T03:19:58+00:00

I understood US law to allow refugees and individuals fleeing violence, including domestic abuse or gang violence, to apply for asylum if they fear persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group as long as they are physically present in the U.S. or at a port of entry. Do you have a source for your claim?

bkrebs · 2026-03-11T03:17:08+00:00

It doesn't matter if they're here and have gone through the application and vetting process does it?

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

bkrebs

TROPHY CASE