HN user
A decade ago, citing sources in an online debate was considered normal. I think we should bring that back. If you cite sources, it's harder to lie, and you have to do at least a little bit of research before posting. It leads to much better discourse, IMO.
Allowance for emergency payments to keep the lights on
This article notes that some federally-funded nonprofits "couldn’t access funds to make payroll": https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5115026-white-house-fund...
People rely on their paycheck to pay bills! If anyone stops getting their paycheck, that's not "keeping the lights on". Do you agree that any "review" mustn't prevent anyone from receiving their paycheck?
a lot has changed on the Supreme Court since Nixon
Both legislation and Supreme Court precedent say that the President cannot impound funds. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for him to impound funds because the Supreme Court decision was fifty years ago and they might rule differently today.
Couldn't that argument be used to justify breaking any law? I think Trump must follow the law. Do you agree that Trump must follow the law even if the Supreme Court hasn't specifically reaffirmed that particular law recently?
(I'd feel differently if Trump illegally impounded some trivial amount of money just to get a case before the Supreme Court; but that's not what he's doing here.)
Last I saw the judge blocked the mechanism, and needed time to decide on other issues.
A second judge is now quite clearly reiterating that the money must keep flowing for now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5124167-trump-f...
It’s going to be a knockdown drag out fight over this. Trump will win some, but lose others. That’s just how it goes.
Yes, that's how spending cuts are supposed to be decided: Congress.
it’s impossible to turn that ship. I can’t imagine the federal government. The only people I’ve seen be successful are the ones that get creative.
Trump has every right to "get creative" within his constitutional power; he doesn't have the right to "creatively" violate the constitution by refusing to faithfully execute the law.
Let's return to the original question. Suppose that Congress passed a law fifty years ago saying that "there shall be an agency to do ABC, with a budget of $X/year, and the President can figure out the details". I agree that the President has wide latitude to decide how the agency does ABC. But he cannot just decide "ABC is a waste of money, let's abolish the agency and use that $X/year to pay off the debt instead". Do you agree? Or are you claiming that the President could unilaterally abolish the ABC agency and stop doing ABC? (Setting aside the question of whether Trump is currently doing that; do you agree that he would not be allowed to do that?)
If the Democrats think they are right they can go to the Supreme Court to force him to spend money with no say in the matter.
They did sue, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the "federal spending freeze".
you’re forgetting how much of the government is not described in law
It's true that many aspects of the government are not described in law. But the major federal expenditures are definitely described in law. That's why Republicans in Congress are currently debating the budget! https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-spending-bill-stalls-congre...
the extremes are not aware that they are on the fringe. They believe that their ideology is widely shared and common amongst everyone.
Yeah. I think the way to counteract this is for moderates to speak up against the extremists, including the extremists on their own side.
For example, Biden criticized the extreme left in the summer 2020 protests: https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/we-are-a-nation-furious-at-inju...
Protesting [police] brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.
We need more of that from our politicians. When Republicans are willing to criticize Trump, I respect them enormously for it; but few Republicans are willing to publicly disagree with Trump.
Congress quite literally has the power to pass laws. According to the Constitution, the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"; the President's oath of office requires that he execute the laws set by Congress. So for example, if Congress were to pass a silly law saying "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent", then the President would be required to make sure the FBI spent exactly $X on computers, down to the cent. The President has many powers, but "deciding not to execute the laws passed by Congress" is not one of them.
Quoting from the page you linked:
Impoundments usually proceeded on the view that an appropriation sets a ceiling on spending for a particular purpose but typically did not mandate that all such sums be spent. According to this view, if that purpose could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation’s total amount, there would be no impediment in law to realizing savings. Impoundments were also justified on the ground that a statute, other than the appropriation itself, authorized the withholding.
In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, then Congress didn't necessarily mean "the FBI shall spend exactly $X on computers, down to the cent". It could be interpreted to mean "the FBI may spend up to $X on computers". But Congress has clarified this ambiguity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impou...
the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.
In other words, if Congress appropriates $X for the FBI to buy computers, but the President thinks $X is excessive, then the President may ask Congress for permission to spend less than $X. If Congress doesn't grant the permission within 45 days, then the President must go ahead and spend the full $X. Again, Congress literally has the power to set the laws, and the President is required by his oath of office to execute those laws.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court already ruled on this exact question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York
President Richard Nixon was of the view that the administration was not obligated to disburse all funds allocated by Congress to states seeking federal monetary assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and ordered the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, and which had been overridden by Congress.
That case seems directly analogous to what Musk is currently trying to do. Nixon lost that case in the Supreme Court.
Even if the Supreme Court did rule that the President had impoundment powers, it would probably be on the condition that "[the purpose of the law] could be accomplished by spending less than the appropriation’s total amount" (quoting from the page you linked). For example, the President would still be required to buy sufficient computers for the FBI, even if he spent less than $X on them. The President still wouldn't be able to just unilaterally decide "no, the FBI doesn't need computers, this is a waste of money".
So, I think it's already quite clear that Trump/Musk do not have the constitutional authority to just start cutting government programs. Do you agree? If not, which part do you want further clarity on?
I actually think Biden/Harris are moderates, and tried to de-escalate things. Whereas Trump is anti-democracy and anti-rule-of-law.
Rather than thinking in terms of "left vs. right", I think in terms of "extreme left vs. moderate left vs. moderate right vs. extreme right". I support moderates over extremists. I support democracy and rule of law. I care about this more than I care about left vs. right.
Federal money is allocated by Congress, and the President is required to spend the money as allocated by Congress. The President does not have authority to cut spending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
Ok, so all payments are paused while funding is reviewed? ... This is taxpayers money ... A shocker that government agencies might need account for spending.
Reviewed for what?
Reviewed for whether the spending was authorized by Congress? If Musk finds that money is being spent in ways that are not authorized by Congress, and cuts that spending, great.
Reviewed for whether the money is being used efficiently to accomplish the goals set by Congress? Again, if Musk finds ways to stretch the same amount of money to accomplish more, that's great. For example, if Musk makes USAID more efficient so it delivers more aid for the same amount of money, that would be wonderful.
Or "reviewed" for whether Trump/Musk agree with them? It's illegal for the President to unilaterally cut programs just because he doesn't like them.
The fundamental definition of a democracy is that the candidate who wins the election, gets to be in power. Trump lost the 2020 election, yet tried to stay in power. If Trump had succeeded at staying in power despite losing the election, then America would no longer have met the definition of a democracy. Therefore, Trump tried to overturn American democracy.
Do you recognize that Trump tried to overturn American democracy? If not: which part of the above paragraph do you disagree with?
In your comment, you seem to be referring to the fact that Trump didn't specifically call for violence on Jan 6. Depending on how exactly you define "coup", you could argue that Trump didn't personally attempt a coup, but rather Trump's supporters attempted a coup on his behalf while he cheered them on (and subsequently pardoned them). I think this is an irrelevant technicality; if Trump's supporters' attempted coup had succeeded, then American democracy would be just as dead as if Trump personally committed the coup.
Returning to the original topic: If you consider Trump's entire conduct around the 2020 election (as well as his extensive history of other dishonesty and lawbreaking) do you genuinely believe that the Democrats still owe Trump a presumption of good faith?
I think it would be great for the federal government to be more efficient and less corrupt. For example, let's talk about USAID. It would be great if DOGE could make USAID more efficient, to accomplish the most possible good with the money allocated by Congress.
So far, that's not what DOGE appears to be doing. Rather than "rooting out corruption and inefficiency", DOGE appears to be cutting government spending that Musk disagrees with.
And that's unconstitutional! The executive branch doesn't have the constitutional authority to unilaterally cut a program established by Congress. If Congress allocated $X billion for foreign aid to country Y, the executive branch must disburse that aid.
Furthermore, speaking of corruption: Both Trump and Musk have major conflicts of interest. Prior to Trump, presidents were expected to divest business interests and put their assets in a blind trust; but Trump refused to do so. And SpaceX is a major federal contractor; if the head of a major federal contractor is _also_ the biggest supporter of the incoming president, the conflict of interest is obvious.
As you said, anyone who has an issue with rooting out corruption isn't in the right. So surely you're alarmed by these conflicts of interest, right? Don't you agree that Musk should either fully divest from SpaceX, or step away from politics?
Everyone deserves a presumption of good faith by default. But Trump has a long history of dishonesty and lawbreaking, culminating in an attempted self-coup in 2020. At some point, he doesn't deserve a presumption of good faith anymore. And he passed that point a long, long time ago.
This is perhaps the single biggest disconnect I see between Democrats and Republicans right now. To Democrats, Trump is "the man who attempted a self-coup", and everything he does is viewed in that light. Whereas Republicans seem to think that it just wasn't a big deal that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election.
Because of Trump's history. Trump attempted a self-coup in 2020 by trying to overturn the election. This attempt was foiled because many judges, public officials, etc. resisted it, including many Republicans. Now Trump is back in power, and Democrats are very nervous about anything that looks like "Trump packing the government with loyalists" or "Trump trying to gain more power over public officials", because that would make it easier for Trump to attempt a future self-coup.
In short: Framing this as "cutting waste, fraud, and abuse" is assuming good faith, but given Trump's history, he doesn't deserve a presumption of good faith.
(Secondary to that: There's a difference between "cutting waste, fraud, and abuse" versus "shutting down entire functions of government without a replacement". Look at Musk trying to shut down USAID, for example. If Musk wanted to "cut waste, fraud, and abuse", that would mean "reforming USAID to achieve the same outcomes while spending less money". Instead, Musk is proposing to eliminate USAID entirely. Even if not for the self-coup angle, that's clearly not just "cutting waste, fraud, and abuse". Foreign aid is established by Congress, and only Congress has the constitutional authority to eliminate that aid.)
I tried searching for "#democrats" on my own Instagram account, and I can confirm it's returning no results. Meta issued a statement saying this was a bug, and some people are saying it's fixed, but it's still broken for me at the time of posting this comment.
My Facebook account is not following Trump or Vance. The article mentioned a theory that some people were following the "POTUS" account, which changed hands; I was never following the "POTUS" account. That seems plausible to me.
I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I'm not sure what's the answer. But this article says that about 90% of pharma marketing dollars are spent on marketing to doctors, not to consumers: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-shee... So it seems like pharma companies are mostly spending money on R&D and on advertising to doctors, not on direct-to-consumer advertising.
Hmmm, the marketing question is complicated and I'm not sure what to think.
From a profit point of view, presumably the advertising department pays for itself; in other words, the advertising department generates money for the R&D department, rather than taking money from the R&D department.
But, the advertising presumably increases the number of people taking the drug. If it's teaching patients/doctors about a valuable new drug that will make peoples' lives better, then it's a social good. But if it's persuading patients/doctors to buy the drug unnecessarily, then it's a waste.
(Also, sometimes two pharma companies have competing drugs that are basically equivalent. So they get trapped in a "Red Queen's race" where they both spend money on advertising to try to gain market share. In the end they've both spent a bunch of money on ads and ended up back where they started. For those cases, banning marketing would be a clear win.)
Edit: Also, keep in mind that "ban/regulate pharma advertising" is a different proposal than "medicare negotiation".
But presumably the advertising department pays for itself, right? So if they cut the advertising department, wouldn't they have less total money in the end? The advertising supports the R&D, not competes with it.
(The one exception is when two pharma companies have competing drugs that are basically equivalent. So they get trapped in a "Red Queen's race" where they both spend money on advertising to try to gain market share. In the end they've both spent a bunch of money on ads and ended up back where they started. For those cases, I think government regulation would be valuable.)
I don't think this article's analysis makes sense.
If pharma companies lose revenue, they have to cut something. Presumably the intention is to force them to cut profits. I found this analysis of global pharma industry profitability: https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/euro2023/poster-is... They found that the average profit margin across the pharma industry was around 20%. So even if pharma companies cut their profits to zero, prices would only drop 20%, right?
And even the idea of cutting profits to zero isn't realistic. Pharma investment is similar to venture capital; investors make risky bets in the hopes that a few of them will pay off big. Why would investors agree to take that risk if they get zero profit in return?
Some people propose things like "the government should fund drug development". OK, that's a fine proposal; it has pros and cons. But that's a very different proposal than "the government should institute price caps on privately-developed drugs". Don't try to justify the latter proposal by conflating it with the former.
this Guardian article doesn't mention R&D at all
This pisses me off so much. Journalists are supposed to do thorough research so they can accurately inform the public. Instead, we see articles like this. How can we have a thoughtful discussion about serious issues when the general public is so misinformed?
God knows these companies aren't in the red, trials or no trials
Hmmm, I'm not sure. Here's a summary of the finances of the global pharma industry: https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/euro2023/poster-is... Note that 55% of the companies made a profit, and the other 45% lost money.
The average profit margin was 20%. On one hand, that's larger than most industries. On the other hand, even if pharma profits were completely eliminated, drugs would only be 20% cheaper...
Novo Nordisk won the lottery by developing Ozempic, an extraordinarily successful drug. (See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/business/denmark-ozempic-...) If you cherry-pick the most successful pharma companies, of course they're going to look unreasonably profitable. For a fair comparison, you need to look at the global pharma industry as a whole.
To start the discussion, I found this analysis of global pharma industry profitability: https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/euro2023/poster-is... Note that only 55% of the pharma companies even made a profit; the other 45% lost money. And the average profit margin was around 20%. So even if pharma companies voluntarily relinquished all profits, drugs would only be 20% cheaper!
The fundamental issue is that drug development is simply expensive. When people get angry about pharma profits, they're barking up the wrong tree.
That would be nice, but it isn't happening right now. Until the government starts funding drug development, do you agree it's reasonable for pharma companies to develop drugs and then sell them at high prices to recoup their costs?
Must it be sold to the world at a price that is only reasonable for the richest countries to pay? Is there no possible regulatory system that could avoid 20 years of HIV spread and death in poor countries, while still getting the rich countries to pay their fair share?
Gilead literally did that! They sold Sovaldi (a treatment for Hepatitis C) for $1000/pill in the USA and $5/pill in India. And people hated them for it.
I think it's only marginally useful for programming to be part of a broad education.
On the contrary, I think a few semesters of basic computing can teach a lot of valuable skills:
- Basic Python skills are sufficient for a lot of scientific data analysis.
- Computing has become an important part of society; so, understanding how computers work is important for being an informed citizen. E.g. understanding the limitations of Incognito Mode in a web browser; or what Bitcoin is and what it isn't; or the difference between centralized platforms and the fediverse.
- Perhaps most importantly, teaching people Python will help dispel the myth that software is some kind of incomprehensible magic.
Certainly, a few semesters studying Python wouldn't be enough to get a high-paying CS job; but it would be no less valuable than a few semesters spent studying French.
The self-identity of "computer people" has long been as an aggrieved, besieged outgroup. To whatever extent we are alien I think we chose that for ourselves.
There's a very real history of negative stereotyping about nerds. It's not OK for you to ignore that or pretend it didn't happen. I never consented to be stereotyped, excluded, or treated as alien.
I agree with the author that CS should be more integrated with other departments. But the author focuses on requiring CS majors to study French, and I'm more interested in the opposite: why shouldn't we require French lit majors to study Python?
In liberal arts circles, there's a widespread attitude that programming is an alien thing. And this attitude extends to programmers as well; the article portrays "computer people" as an outgroup. I think this attitude is deeply unhealthy. Python isn't some kind of incomprehensible gobbledygook! Basic programming skills should be considered part of a well-rounded education, applicable to many different fields, just like reading, writing, and math.
There are some steps in the right direction:
[Mark Guzdial] is trying to rebuild computing education from scratch, for students in fields such as French and sociology. He wants them to understand it as a means of self-expression or achieving justice--and not just a way of making software, or money.
This is great, but the author doesn't seem to realize that many people in CS _already_ view programming as a means of self-expression or achieving justice (e.g. the free software movement, PGP, Mastodon). The liberal arts folks are the ones who think CS is just a way of making money.
I wish people would stop portraying computing as an isolated, inaccessible thing; and start viewing it as a part of modern society that every educated person should know the fundamentals of.
It's a different plastic, though; it might taste different.
How do corporations "indirectly kill millions"? If you're talking about things like "Coke selling sugary drinks that contribute to millions of people dying of health problems", well, it's perfectly legal for you to sell sugary drinks too.
when you pick up a dirty plate to reveal mold or wiggling pantry fly eggs
You're describing a hypothetical man who thinks dishes should be left in the sink until they grow mold and attract pests. Obviously mold and pests are bad, so this hypothetical man would be in the wrong.
But, most real relationship conflicts don't fit that hypothetical description! For example, last year there was a discussion on HN about leaving a dirty dish by the sink: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31000658 There was no mold or pantry fly eggs in that situation; the wife was upset about any dirty dishes being left by the sink at all, even a once-used glass of water.
And that's a much more complicated situation. It's common for different people to have different expectations for cleanliness: a husband might think it's OK for an empty glass of water to be left on the counter if he might drink from it later, but the wife might think that's "dirty". These are different points of view, and neither one is necessarily wrong.
Sometimes people try to frame this as "the husband is sexist and trying to make his wife do the chores" (or "he's inflicting executing function theft on her") but I don't think that's a correct or helpful framing. Like writeslowly and AceJohnny2 wrote above, this is a case of different people having different standards. That doesn't necessarily mean the one with lower standards is committing "executive function theft" on the one with higher standards.
The way that you were treated -- the gay-bashing, homelessness, poverty, trauma, etc -- was absolutely awful. Nobody should ever be treated like that. I agree you've been hurt much worse than either me or Aaronson.
You're right that when people say "men suck", that's not as bad as homelessness, poverty, trauma, gay-bashing, etc. But, compare: when people say "women suck" or "gay people suck", that's not as bad as homelessness, poverty, trauma, gay-bashing, etc. either! That doesn't make it OK to say "women suck" or "gay people suck". Hateful words like "men suck" and "women suck" and "gay people suck" are still bad even though they're not as bad as the problems you experienced.
Also, I don't think your experience is typical for someone in my generation (born in the 90s). Women and gay man in my generation certainly faces disadvantages, but nowhere near what you did on average.
And social awkwardness is a real disadvantage too. Historically, nerds were even the target of physical violence. You were unfortunate enough to be both gay and socially awkward, which must have been doubly difficult. But straight socially awkward people are still disadvantaged even though they're straight; just like gay people with normal social skills are still disadvantaged even though they have normal social skills.
The net effect is that even though I'm a straight man, I've still been significantly hurt, to the point of developing depression. I certainly haven't been hurt as badly as you were, but my pain is still real. (Imagine a gay man who never experiences gay-bashing, homelessness, or poverty. But suppose they're regularly exposed to homophobia, causing them to develop depression. They haven't been hurt as badly as you were, but their pain is still real!)
Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity: man, woman, straight, gay, nerdy or not. Your pain is worse than mine or Aaronson's, but that doesn't invalidate our pain, nor does it excuse the people who are causing our pain. It's not OK to use the existence of misogyny or homophobia as an excuse for misandry or nerdphobia.
The fact is that waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many men do suck... Rapey, dominating, violent, criminal, oligarchic, etc. People who have been harmed by such men have an absolute right to vent.
It's true that some men are rapey, dominating, etc. Those men have deeply hurt many people. This is a real problem. The victims of those men have a right to vent about those things, and society needs to listen and hold the those bad men accountable.
But the vast majority of men are decent people who aren't rapey, dominating, violent, criminal, or oligarchic. (Many men aren't even particularly sexist! Every man internalizes some amount of sexism, but that's true of every woman too.) So the victims of bad men don't have a right to make generalizations like "men suck". In fact, that's misandrist hate speech.
Analogy: Many socially awkward nerds have been deeply hurt in their lives. They have a right to vent about the pain they've experienced, and society should listen, and should hold accountable the people who are hurting them. But that doesn't give the victims a right to become hateful incels who make generalizations like "women suck".
The key is to distinguish the good men from the bad men: treat the good men with respect and decency, while holding the bad men accountable.
And society does hold many of the bad men accountable. Every single day, society sends men to prison for rape, violence, and crime. And men regularly get censured or fired for sexism. It's true that society doesn't always hold bad men accountable, and this is a real problem; but society really does hold many of the bad men accountable.
One of the rules for good debate is to argue against the best possible version of your opponent's argument. ... And yet, there are plenty of coherent and internally-consistent feminisms
I agree there are many good feminists out there, and I support them. But there are also many bad feminists out there, and they've hurt me deeply.
By analogy to above: Some feminists are misandrists. Those misandrists have deeply hurt many men (including me). Men like me have a right to vent about those misandrists, and society needs to listen and hold the misandrists accountable. At the same time, I know that most feminists are decent people, which is why I'm careful not to make generalizations like "feminists suck".
The key is to distinguish the good feminists from the bad feminists: support the good feminists, while holding the bad feminists accountable.
Unfortunately, what I've seen is that most feminists make excuses for the bad feminists, rather than holding them accountable. For example, you just now made excuses for the feminists who say "men suck"! Throughout your post, you put the onus on me to tolerate being hurt, instead of putting the onus on the bad feminists to stop hurting me! And this is a pattern throughout the feminist movement: Most feminists, even otherwise-good feminists, are unwilling to acknowledge that the bad feminists are causing real harm, and that men have a right to be upset that the bad feminists are hurting them.
So if you feel like feminism isn't focused on you, you are absolutely correct.
It's fine that feminism isn't focused on me. The problem is that bad feminists are actively hurting people like me; and the broader feminist movement is enabling that behavior.
Did you read the link I posted above? https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2091#comment-326664 Scott Aaronson wrote a very thoughtful and introspective post about the issues facing socially awkward men, while also being careful to respect women. His post resonated with me deeply; he put into words many of the things I had been struggling with. This is exactly the kind of thing we need more men to do. And yet, he received some extremely toxic responses from feminists -- e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20150113081455/http://www.rawsto.... And in the end, the harassment was too much, so he stopped talking publicly about these issues, and nothing got better for me or other socially awkward men.
This kind of misandry needs to stop happening. I know most feminists aren't personally saying horrible misandrist things. I'm not saying "feminism sucks". Yet, the misandry needs to stop. Do you agree the misandry needs to stop? Will you stop making excuses for misandry?
(P.S. I know you touched on a lot of other issues, but this post was getting pretty long, so I wanted to focus on the core issue and leave the other issues for some other time.)