> will reliably flag kill any reference to Somali healthcare fraud in Minnesota
Almost certainly because of how these tend to get framed.
The Minnesota situation involves, at this point, a couple dozen bad actors being charged. Most of them are Somali.
Now, we can look at this more than one way, but mostly branching off from two distinct paths:
One - that there is some specific relationship between many of these people that resulted in them sharing information between each other and becoming involved. The people doing the fraud met each other in the same community, so that's the proximal cause for their relationship, but we take no value judgment on the community on the whole or try to extrapolate it beyond that, the same way we would not try to extrapolate a out the actions of the mafia to every Italian person in the country.
Two - we could frame it as some sort of immigration issue and make it seem like these actions reflect on the 80,000 other Somali people in the state and the broader immigration conversation in this country, where we try to superimpose the crimes of the few onto a much larger group where the vast majority had nothing to do with any of this.
One allows for discussion in a reasonable manner without getting politically charged. The other incites quite a lot of discord because it is fundamentally a bad faith argument, meant to bolster a political ideology.
This article could be summed up in one sentence as "Markets are more complicated than a country so saying you are targeting a country or continent as a market is too high level to convey an actionable plan."
Which, yeah, sure, but did anyone ever think there was such thing as a "every person in America" or "every person in Korea" market for anything but the most universal of basic necessities?
I'm not sure what I was expecting when I clicked this link, but what I ended up reading appears to just be AI blogspam.
Author here. That’s a fair reaction, and I agree with part of it.
You’re right that almost no one literally believes “every person in America” is their market. My point isn’t about what people consciously believe, but about how decisions actually get made once a country label enters the discussion.
In practice, phrases like “the U.S. market” or “the Asian market” often function as decision placeholders. They signal progress, but they also delay the harder choices that determine whether an entry works at all: who specifically buys, under what constraints, through which channel, and what is explicitly excluded.
That’s why the argument can sound obvious in hindsight. Before launch, the country label compresses complexity. After failure, teams acknowledge the fragmentation retroactively.
This critique also applies unevenly. For low-involvement, highly standardized goods (mass retail, commodity hardware), broad assumptions can hold longer. The article is aimed much more at B2B and constraint-heavy products where purchasing situations narrow quickly and vary dramatically even within the same country.
So yes, your one-sentence summary isn’t wrong. The issue is that many teams act at that level while believing they’re being more precise. That gap between intent and execution is what the post is calling out.
Can't see the original comment, is that about my usage of the "astounding" word? I am Ukrainian (not a native speaker), and it popped up subconsciously, but now that I see it it another comment – very likely I just read it, that's why indeed! Amazing
You intentionally made disparaging remarks about someone and attempted to tie them having an opinion about a technology to that of people who have a vested financial interest in said technology.
You didn't engage at all on the substance of their comment - that they find AI useful for doing code reviews - and instead made a comment that was nothing but condescension.
All of that is separate from whether or not AI is overhyped or anything else - it being valuable for PRs could be true while it is also overhyped. If true, that could be some of the nuance you seem to be so concerned about us lacking.
> Defending borders is the most basic function of the state. It quite literally does not have anything better to do than to defend its borders.
Fundamentally, everything in your post down to this ending boils down to whether or not you think that immigrants coming into the country is a good thing or not. People will try to split hairs over "doing it the right way," when until the 1900s doing it the right way was basically just having enough financial stability to make it here - many states had nothing beyond 'means testing' that would easily be passed if you could afford to make it to America rather than stowing away, and many states had less than that. For most of American history, immigrating properly was literally just showing up.
For the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, the only difference between them and the legal immigrant is the amount of paperwork on file. And many of us arguing that that paperwork matters are beneficiaries of a time where that paperwork wasn't necessary.
It's very explicitly a case of "Fuck you, got mine."
You know, ideological differences aside, there are some brass-tacks reasons that this particular brand of rhetoric does you no good, and actually hurts you.
Bought groceries lately? Kind of expensive, no? A significant portion of that is due to the central valley labor shortage. Which is a direct result of ICE enforcement. Same goes for price increases in restaurants across the country. Those increases in prices at the grocery store also translate to inflationary pressure across the board. People have to spend more to eat, so they demand bigger salaries, so their companies raise prices. Not rocket science.
Which makes me wonder - what exactly do you think the value prop is, here? Are you directly benefitting from this or is it just a balm for some vague jingoist need to feel superior? I'm genuinely curious. The common arguments like 'they're importing rapists' is... well I don't even know where to start with that one it's just preposterous and demonstrably false. Immigrants aren't taking your job, are they? Like what is it?
> Which makes me wonder - what exactly do you think the value prop is, here?
I want to leave my country to my children and theirs. Whatever America would be after the endless waves of third world immigrants (most of whom are grasping collectivists who value none of the things that have made America worth preserving, and would happily neuter the bill of rights and tax every dollar out of my pocket) it would not be my country. Bored cat ladies and wishcasting liberals are apparently happy to roll the dice with the futures of our children on the line, but I'm not. Let Canada or the UK or whoever carry the experiment to its conclusion, and if it works, then by golly let's jump in with both feet. But a blind gamble? Hard pass.
Perhaps it would be different if I thought we had good faith partners on the other side, but I don't. Biden tried to bum-rush millions of illegals into the country with the full stated intent to amnesty them, enfranchise them, and use them to control the congress, admit new states (DC/PR), and cement permanent demographic-guaranteed progressive/collectivist majority. The democrats attempted most of these steps during his tenure, but were 1 vote short in the senate.
I was hesitant to even support deportations before the Biden regime jumped the shark. (Remember when they said we needed to pass a new law to "seal" the border--and explicit lie--when the law actually codified mass, unvetted illegal immigration at ~10X historical levels? I doubt it.) Knowing now that the left (the leadership, if not the rank and file) clearly intended to weaponize demographic change for their political benefit, of course I oppose them.
Again, the entire commentary you have here is all more FYGM.
If the Native Americans had this attitude (and Europe didn't just go to war) we wouldn't be here at all. If earlier European-descendant Americans had this attitude, a huge chunk of us wouldn't be here.
People said all of the same things here that you're saying about Irish, Italian, Chinese, and many other immigrant classes over the years. None of your rhetoric is new or unique.
> Again, the entire commentary you have here is all more FYGM.
Typical progressive inversion of reality. If you think it's selfish for Americans to expect the American government to put them first, I'd hate to hear what you have to think about the foreigners who demand the same!
> If the Native Americans had this attitude (and Europe didn't just go to war) we wouldn't be here at all.
The Native Americans did have this attitude, which is why they consistently resisted the colonization of their territory.
> If earlier European-descendant Americans had this attitude, a huge chunk of us wouldn't be here.
Earlier European descendant Americans brought in immigrants to further their own goal of colonizing the North American continent. It wasn't a welfare policy for the benefit of foreigners, it was a policy enacted by Americans for the benefit of Americans. They also drastically cut immigration when it suited them, as with the Immigration Act of 1924.
> People said all of the same things here that you're saying about Irish, Italian, Chinese, and many other immigrant classes over the years. None of your rhetoric is new or unique.
Are you suggesting that earlier European-descendant Americans did, in fact, share my attitude? Pick a lane.
> Typical progressive inversion of reality. If you think it's selfish for Americans to expect the American government to put them first, I'd hate to hear what you have to think about the foreigners who demand the same!
Because I don't think it's actually beneficial for Americans to do what you're suggesting we do. America became what it was through accepting immigrants from all over the world.
> The Native Americans did have this attitude, which is why they consistently resisted the colonization of their territory.
Did you ignore the part of the message that literally covered that? Or is your stance that might makes right? Alright Mr. Redbeard
> Earlier European descendant Americans brought in immigrants to further their own goal of colonizing the North American continent. It wasn't a welfare policy for the benefit of foreigners, it was a policy enacted by Americans for the benefit of Americans. They also drastically cut immigration when it suited them, as with the Immigration Act of 1924.
> Are you suggesting that earlier European-descendant Americans did, in fact, share my attitude? Pick a lane.
Are you suggesting that I believe that Americans are monolithic in thought? I believe it is quite obvious that I am speaking to the overall attitude of the country on the broader level - obviously there are groups that have held a wide variety of views. But for the majority of our history - as you pointed out, only the last 100 years or so have had particularly strict immigration laws - the prevailing view as evidenced by the actual laws of the country was obviously not a country that felt that restricting immigration was the right thing to do for her citizens, despite the fact that many people obviously had the same sentiments then that you do today.
if you look at that chart, there's a price spike between jan-march of '25, precisely when ICE started cracking down in CA.
Biden also famously did not do what you are saying he did. He continued the work on the border wall, much to the chagrin of everyone who sees immigration differently than you do. The idea that immigration was "10x historical levels" is not backed up by the data - see, I found a chart too [0]. True that we now have a greater percent of the population than any time in history [1] - around 16%. If that's "they're taking over the country" then I'd say you're just being dramatic. Since it also looks like we're talking about legal immigrants here, let's take a look at what they provide because you did mention taxes.
So we've already identified that 16% of our population is immigrants, more than ever before, sure. In 2023 we made about $2.2T from individual income taxes [2]. Of that, immigrants paid $651B [3]. So despite being 16% of the population, they paid nearly 30% of our total individual tax revenue. I'd say that's a pretty good deal!
> do not involve lawyers in vast majority of cases and encourage self-representation instead.
Sure, but if it's a corporation, who is going to represent the corporation besides a lawyer? In the US, some states explicitly do not allow a lawyer and require a different officer of the company represent them, but plenty do allow lawyers.
If Paris is taking Apple to the tribunal, there's no single human equivalent to Paris on Apple's side. This seems like the exact sort of situation where a lawyer is approved to represent somebody else.
You also get things like Stripe with mandatory arbitration. The arbitrator is chosen by Stripe. Naturally arbitrator wants to keep Stripe as a client.
Stripe terms allow them to hold the funds until 'investigation' is concluded but while held, they have the right to invest the funds and keep the profit.
> Sure, but if it's a corporation, who is going to represent the corporation besides a lawyer?
Under common law, lawyers (in the US sense) are not required on either side in the case of handling a dispute or a small claim.
Specifically in Australia, the company would have a complaint department, and the case would be dealt with by a complaint officer, not a lawyer.
If the scope of the case exceeds the tribunal's authority, the case is handled in the state's district court or in a federal court for cross-jurisdictional matters. The official title of the person representing the defendant (e.g. a company) in a courtroom is the barrister, but the case documentation and legal advice are provided by a solicitor.
Hi, I’m closely involved in xCAT cases for my Australian organisation.
We send an in-house lawyer to represent us at every mediation and hearing.
Every complaint that goes to an official body is dealt with by the lawyers at that point. Only if they complain directly to us does our “complaints department” handle it.
I can't speak for CAT's outside NSW, but in NSW, under section 45 of the «Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)», a party (including a company that is the respondent) is not entitled to be represented by any person unless NCAT grants leave (permission) for representation[0], which is a separate step – the company must seek leave first for each case.
Only certain NCAT case types give an automatic right to representation, so a company can have a «lawyer» appear without seeking leave. NCAT’s own guidance[1] lists these as:
Administrative review and regulation
Professional discipline
Retail leases
Then there is also a separate provision in the Consumer and Commercial Division for high value claims (e.g. over AU$30k) – NCAT’s guideline indicates it will usually permit legal representation where the other party has a lawyer, where there are complex issues, or where a party would be disadvantaged without representation.
Since I do not know the nature and specifics of your Australian organisation, I have nothing else of significance to contribute on that particular topic.
To sum it up, the most common dispute scenarios involve the following sequence of events: consumer ↝ complaint department ↝ state/federal level regulator, e.g. Department of Fair Trading (NSW), ACCC (federal) or similar ↝ ombudsman or xCAT or a court. The regulatorory step can sometimes be skipped.
> Not at all. I'm simply asking whether you can see how speech restrictions can be abused. Nothing vague here.
Speech restriction being able to be abused doesn't mean that speech restriction is never appropriate. There are countless things that are fundamental to day to day life that can be abused but are vital in their non-abusive form.
> This is an anti-scientific perspective. There is no such thing as "known falsehoods". There is only "current best understanding", which is the thing that most aligns with observations of reality.
If you are making a claim based on information you know to be incorrect, this is a known falsehood. This isn't anti-science, we're not talking about people making arguments against the scientific consensus in good-faith with some framework behind their reasoning.
> Questioning existing axioms or intermediate conclusions is a great technique to advance understanding of reality. If everyone simply referred back to the previous "foregone conclusions", we'd still be trying to discover fire.
Trying to frame this discussion as being a matter of people performing science and not people taking a politically or financially motivated stance (or people that have been conned by people that did that) is also fundamentally dishonest.
> The problem here is the gatekeeping of discussion. Humanity has spent thousands of years trying to escape the power of the societal priest class, and we are in a better place than ever.
Free speech isn't absolute, and private companies are allowed to moderate the speech that happens on their property. This isn't a societal priest class.
Even an extremely slanted Supreme Court didn't find that the actions of the government had significant influence on social media companies and their tamping down of covid misinformation.
> There are countless things that are fundamental to day to day life that can be abused but are vital in their non-abusive form.
Great. Waiting for your argument on why this is one of them.
> If you are making a claim based on information you know to be incorrect, this is a known falsehood. This isn't anti-science, we're not talking about people making arguments against the scientific consensus in good-faith with some framework behind their reasoning.
I'm curious, how did you come to know that everyone who is asking questions not in line with the consensus belief is a bad faith operator? And what makes you able to assess the framework behind their questions?
> Trying to frame this discussion as being a matter of people performing science and not people taking a politically or financially motivated stance (or people that have been conned by people that did that) is also fundamentally dishonest.
This is exactly the problem. You're equating the small minority of folks who are using their speech to defraud with the remainder of the "dissent group" (for lack of a better term) who is trying to get to the truth. Then, by claiming the existence of the minority's speech is incredibly dangerous, attempt to ban anything not in line with the orthodoxy.
I'm not defending people using their speech to profit politically or financially. I'm saying the benefit of getting rid of that speech is not worth the collateral damage that would inflict.
How did the folks that questioned the early "masks aren't effective" claim stand to profit? Or the claim that the virus definitely 100% had zoonotic origin? Maybe you believe they were heavily invested in mask manufacturing companies and were imminently about to launch a political campaign on a Sinophobic platform?
> Free speech isn't absolute, and private companies are allowed to moderate the speech that happens on their property.
There's a lot to unpack here, and I'm not sure how much you've gone into the details of what you're saying, but:
- "free speech is not absolute" is not normative, but descriptive (not really relevant to our discussion)
- "private companies are allowed to moderate the speech that happens on their property" Wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R.... Whether this applies to social media is currently being tested in our court system.
- SCOTUS saying "not much came of this" doesn't mean nobody was wronged, or that much couldn't have come of it. Also, doesn't this (govt intervention in speech) directly contradict your claim that it was just private companies acting in their own domain?
> This isn't a societal priest class.
You're literally advocating for a priest class, who is blessed to discuss "science", because they are doing it in the way that you interpret as "good faithed" and have the right "framework" behind their discourse. Which is exactly what qualified the religious leaders of old times.
I'm incredibly grateful to not live in a time where only certain people could speak on particular topics. I wish more people were.
The lead "researcher" on that paper is a climate change denier who also claims covid didn't exist. He also used racial slurs against a former colleague.
> The lead "researcher" on that paper is a climate change denier who also claims covid didn't exist. He also used racial slurs against a former colleague.
I would argue that his general stance on COVID is HIGHLY relevant and not poisoning the well, as is his general stance on other science-related topics, which climate change definitely is. If someone claims that COVID doesn't even exist then I think it is quite fair to immediately discard anything they have to say on this topic.
Mentioning his racism is perhaps poisoning the well, but the other stuff I think is relevant.
> But if you want to mis-characterize things, by all means do so.
People were allowed to have open and honest discussion about things. I saw plenty of discussion about myocarditis at the time from reputable sources and in reasonable manners.
But they were all pointing out that this is just an aspect of flu vaccines, that we had known it could happen even with regular flu vaccines for a long time, that the incident rate is lower than just getting covid (or the flu) in general, and that the severity was also less than that of if you had gotten it as a result of covid.
Because that's a better picture of reality because it gives you the full context.
Instead of pointing out that whole context, a whole lot of people left it at "it's the clot shot! it gives you myocarditis!"
And despite this apparent widespread suppression that everyone claims was going on, this bad-faith misrepresentation of the reality of the situation was all over the place. I saw many times more people spouting misinformation than I did the actual full details of this stuff. Like .01% of the potentially fatal misinformation got cleaned up and people are acting like there was this brutal suppression of the truth.
The problem is that if you're criticizing the vaccine for this, you're at best uninformed, and quite often, doing so in bad faith.
As has been pointed out in the thread you're responding to, it causes these effects at lower rates and lower severities than just getting covid while unvaccinated. It's also just something we've known some flu vaccines to do for decades now. (And just the regular old flu can cause it, too)
Almost certainly because of how these tend to get framed.
The Minnesota situation involves, at this point, a couple dozen bad actors being charged. Most of them are Somali.
Now, we can look at this more than one way, but mostly branching off from two distinct paths:
One - that there is some specific relationship between many of these people that resulted in them sharing information between each other and becoming involved. The people doing the fraud met each other in the same community, so that's the proximal cause for their relationship, but we take no value judgment on the community on the whole or try to extrapolate it beyond that, the same way we would not try to extrapolate a out the actions of the mafia to every Italian person in the country.
Two - we could frame it as some sort of immigration issue and make it seem like these actions reflect on the 80,000 other Somali people in the state and the broader immigration conversation in this country, where we try to superimpose the crimes of the few onto a much larger group where the vast majority had nothing to do with any of this.
One allows for discussion in a reasonable manner without getting politically charged. The other incites quite a lot of discord because it is fundamentally a bad faith argument, meant to bolster a political ideology.
reply