If you take a look back at history, literally everyone would disagree. A strong England has done unimaginable damage to almost every other society on the planet.
How are those vaccines, antibiotics, and antiseptics working out for your nation? How many people would be dead in “every other society” without them?
Thank the Brits for that.
How’s the modern world in general working out for your nation? Would it be better off in pre-industrialised times? Do you enjoy being clothed and well fed; do you enjoy travel via bike, car, train, or plane and not needing to do back-breaking manual labour; do you like clean water and sanitation? Do you like to kick back and watch the TV after a long day? Or, listen to radio? Or maybe you prefer to make a long distance call to a friend? Assuming of course that you like turbines for power generation from coal, gas, nuclear, wind, or waves.
Yep, all of the above require the Brits again… [1]
Do you feel any pangs of irony when posting your dislike of Brits via the world-wide web, on a Turing machine based computer, powered by an ARM chip? ;)
Do you like sport? Music? Literature… ok I’ll stop now …
Not really sure who we mean by "people". "People" will do business with the UK but that's not the same as "like" and "trust". If you mean regular people like from SEA that you have spoken to, yeah those people are generally nice and will act nice to your face. But many of them from those I have spoken to hold their grievances.
Not my experience at all in South Asia. Why would they act nice about the British to someone who is from their country (or a neighboring country)?
My experience is nationalists (and bigots, and especially ethnonationalists) do have greivances, and some westernised intellectuals have ideas about decolonisation etc., but most people do not
I am beginning to enjoy how deranged HN’s hatred of the British is. I try to explain to fellow Brits how much Americans in particular now hate us and it doesn’t register with them.
If they were to do something positive with it then it would be nice.
Instead they are hell bent on criticizing and tearing down anyone that does, especially when their finance bros are invested in the legacy competition.
What sort of things are you building? What do you like about exe.dev? Just curious what teh overhead and $20/month subscription is enabling for you.
>I’ll be going about my day, have a random idea, launch a microvm on exe.dev with a prompt of my idea, and get a working thing a few minutes later.
This is my experience with Claude code on my local machine. I suppose maybe you are doing something that naturally has system side effects? Obviously sandboxes have advantages sometimes but I havent seen a need for what I'm building.
For me, the essential difference between exe and local harnesses is that they have really nice built in methods to take care of stuff like auth and inter-vm interactions, which makes it easy to build live internet-connected services that I can share with other people. There is no deploy step, which is a surprising amount of time savings. They also have nice things like email receive/send, the ability to issue phone notifications through their app, and just a ton of little things where it feels right.
FWIW, the $20/month subscription also includes $20/month of LLM credits. That’s obviously not sustainable, but it should make it easier to try out the service. I would stick with them even if they dropped it.
Here is an invite link for a 30 day trial (that benefits me too if you were to become a paying member):
Shelley is a fantastic agent and their batteries included vm image makes the most of it. It includes things like a browser for Shelley to check its own work. And Shelley has root and full access to them, so it can solve any problem and do pretty much anything you need.
This article is conflating two things. The US response to the Digital Duty of Care law and the US response to the algorithm opt-out provision.
The US did criticize the opt out provision.
But when the US says this, its about a different provision in DDC, which says platforms need to proactively remove harmful content.
>"We ask that Australia clarify how exactly 'harm' and 'risks' shall be determined... ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech," the US said in its submission.
reply