heylook

Mickey Mouse is not handing you over a legal agreement with guarantees on the ingredients of the candy

yes he absolutely is. that's literally the law.

"It seems more likely..." "It might not happen that way..." "someone does need to check..." "seems entirely possible..." "I'd want more like 5 years to be confident..."

Lot of different ways to say you don't know anything at all. This isn't a new market. This isn't the first time laws have changed in this way. This isn't the first time they've had this effect. We already know all of this. You're just waffling and enjoying the sound of your own voice.

Small governments don't deploy thousands of military troops into their own cities.

Whether or not the SovCit practitioners understand that's what's happening is anyone's guess.

Probably more of them don't understand. I am very unfortunate to have one in my extended family, and they have fully lost their grip on reality and basic cause-and-effect. They skate by most of the time, which reinforces their beliefs, and then once the pile gets large enough, the whole thing collapses on them, and then cycle starts over.

You tax the everloving hell out of the rich, so they can't just buy whatever policy or judiciary outcome they want or build mega "just in case, i promise uwu" bunkers.

Now you compare the all-in cost of living across salary, taxes, housing, healthcare, and everything else.

The intuition is that they are not truly independent statistical events. Each trial reveals more information about the underlying "quality" of the resume (for passing this trial, not necessarily real world "quality" of the candidate). We are not rolling dice where each toss is fundamentally unrelated to prior tosses.

But I doubt the impacts of rent control would appear in the market this quickly, it'd take years for the market signals to be measurable.

Hard disagree. Rational investors have no problem whatsoever projecting the impact to future cash flows and adjusting the amount they're willing to pay now. That's like saying the stock market wouldn't respond quickly to changes in next year's tax law.

Yet another moment where Strangers in Their Own Land[0] is prescient.

From an interview[1] given by the author: "I think the next most important reason they distrusted the federal government is their experience with protective agencies in the state of Louisiana, and they thought, “Gosh, these are a lot of people we pay taxes to but they don't really protect us.” And they’re right, because Louisiana is an oil state - that was a big discovery for me - and it outsources, in a way, the moral dirty work to the state. So, the state actually pretends to protect the citizenry from hazardous waste and pollution of air and water and ground, but it doesn't actually protect it very much. It gives out permits, as one Tea Party person said "like candy." And so, they felt the federal government is just a bigger, badder version of a state government which isn't protecting us. So, they'd had bad experience. They’d been burned, and I think that's the second kind of source of resistance to the government. But the third is that they saw the government as an instrument of what I'll call “the line cutters.”"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangers_in_Their_Own_Land [1] https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=18-P13-000...

This has been the historical cycle for as long as we have records of human history. Power begets power and greed. Eventually either everyone else reaches a breaking point and "eat the rich", or an external group takes advantage and eats everyone. Then we try again.

This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.

According to the regulator for Ontario doctors, Jamal initially tried to place all the blame on her innocent research associate, almost ruining her career. She then tried to discredit her colleagues, claiming they had ulterior motives for questioning her results.

When that didn’t work, they found Jamal tried to cover up her fraud: She illegally accessed patient records to destroy and change files, disposed of an old computer so investigators couldn’t examine it and even went into the Canadian Blood Services facility and changed freezer temperatures to damage blood and urine samples to mask her deception.

And in March 2018, after admitting her misconduct before a disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Jamal was stripped of her medical license.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-despite-commit...

Periscope was in closed beta when Meerkat launched. Neither was a clone of the other. Just two teams with the same idea at the same time.

This is exactly the main lesson of Finite and Infinite Games. There are finite games, in which the goal is to win, and there are infinite games, in which the goal is to continue playing the game. Using this framing, one can account for quite a large amount of long-term, large-scale problems as breakdowns wherein some participants choose to play formerly infinite games as finite ones, thus crushing their competition but destroying the game itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games

A picture is worth a thousand words.

You're being obtuse. There's an obvious difference between "state-level actors can produce misleading films" and "anyone with an internet connection and 5 minutes can make anything they want".

I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend.

Hacker news has become a much more depressing place post-Covid. Musk, Zuck, the All-In guys, Bezos, Altman. All of them role models for the people here, and all of them have gone mask-off to one degree or another in their pursuit of power and wealth and public adulation.

One side of the hacker/startup coin is "look at how I [built this company|escalated privilege|retired early] by [twisting the rules of the system|exploiting a loophole|penetration testing]", and that ethos isn't entirely that far away from "did you know you can get the laws changed just by spending $50k on a senator?" or "Twitter only needs 50 engineers as long as they're all H1-B hostages".

It really feels like what we've lost is empathy and humanity.

There are plenty of places where this is the standard.

Anecdote time: I joined a not-quite-FAANG in an acquihire. Some of my teammates negotiated hard on the way in; I did not. After I got into management, I learned that they're perfectly willing to give you an extra $10k on your initial salary offer, but then you just get a lower raise after the first year, so everyone ends up in the same spot almost immediately anyway. The $10k was a rounding error in the total comp, and anyway they preferred to have steady employees who could be happy in a good situation for many years, rather than mercenaries who were more likely to chase vanity metrics and leave half-finished projects when they left in 18 months. Equity comp was generous and non-negotiable.

What's the rationale for funding those niche sports?

You've been capitalism-pilled. Sometimes it's worth funding things that "aren't worth funding". Not everything needs to return an easily measurable 10% YoY. Investing in the richness of experience for your population or student body or community is a good thing, even if it doesn't always pay itself back in an obvious way. Well-rounded people are happier, more resilient, and yes, more productive.

Don't blow the whole budget on underwater basket-weaving, but investing a bit in enrichment and supporting niches is an important part of life.

It's not about "the white mans burden", whatever that means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden

I'm not reading the arguments closely enough to make a judgement, but the reference is to an imagined moral imperative to spread "civilization" and whatnot to "lesser" cultures and peoples. We covered it in high school where I grew up.

Focusing on "nations" specifically is a waste of effort. "Power structures" generically are enough. It doesn't matter whether it's technofascist fiefs, nation-states, the Illuminati, or an up-jumped HOA.

Exactly. The President of the United States held up a terribly photoshopped picture of some tattoos and claimed it clearly showed membership in MS13. Half the country immediately decided that was good enough proof for extrajudicial rendition. Authoritarians only care about a thin enough veneer of evidence to give them just enough cover with just enough people to get away with what they want and then move onto the next thing.

Except judges can't do anything proactively and are forced to rely on the executive to enforce their decisions and the legislative to fund them. Really, they're absolutely nothing like a monarch. Especially compared to the guy who appoints all the secretaries, commands the military, and decides foreign policy.

That's just not true. This case is a specific example of exactly the opposite. Read the opinion. It's literally a panel of federal court judges, one a Trump appointee, going through each justification and calling bullshit on each one.

So many people in here are making the same mistake. The whole purpose of the courts is to decide whether some behavior does or does not fit within the confines of some statute. They don't just say "oh yeah whatever you say, go ahead." This very decision is just several instances of the court saying "the law says you can only tariff when X. you said X is true, but it's obviously not, so you can't tariff."

This is covered in the ruling. The courts get to decide whether the executive's use of delegated legislative power (levying taxes) is both constitutional and within the bounds of the relevant legislation. They don't simply take the executive at their word, and in this case specifically there are several examples, such as the tariffs that are supposed to be about fixing fentanyl. Cited legislation requires a specific emergency justification, and the tariff has to meaningfully address the issue. The court rules that the justification of "it's suddenly a fentanyl emergency and making our own citizens pay additional tax will make China do something" isn't close to fitting within the statutory and constitutional framework.

Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't.

Like Manifest V3, which explicitly makes it harder to strip out Google's own ad products on websites you visit?

without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser.

Or maybe it wouldn't. There are already lots of other browsers that don't.

Chesterton's fence is undefeated.

You seem to be arguing that the second government touches anything then everything it does gets credited to the government funding column.

Absolutely not. This is an obvious bad faith interpretation of my comment.

Either way the fact remains that the billions spent developing GPU's preceded the millions spent to use those GPUs for AI.

Again, you're just obviously completely factually wrong to anyone who has even a modicum of casual interest in the history of these technologies.

Not sure what it has to do with polarization of the comment section. I assume it's just people seeking an opportunity to heap abuse on anything close to a representative of the evil "other side".

And one more time for the people in the back. Anyone with any amount of actual knowledge on the topic at hand can immediately dismiss your entire argument because it isn't based in anything resembling fact. It's just you wishing or hoping that it might be somewhere close to true. This is just that scene from Billy Madison: "Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Nope. Wholehearted rejection of literally every policy, executive order, layoff, lawsuit, impoundment, appointment that this technofascist wannabe tries to pull. The constitution spells out how he can accomplish his goals, and everything he's trying to do requires an act of congress, and there's been literally nothing. If he's so popular and such a visionary dealmaker, why can't he get literally any actual laws passed through a congress completely controlled by his party?

I think their point is the billions in private investment which preceded those millions.

But the "billions" didn't precede the "millions". They're just completely incorrect, and anyone that knows even a tiny amount about the actual history can see it immediately. That's why these comment sections are so polarized. It's a bunch of people vibe commenting vs people that have spent even like an hour researching the industry.

The history of semiconductor enterprise in the US is just a bunch of private companies lobbying the government for contracts, grants, and legal/trade protections. All of them would've folded at several different points without military contracts or government research grants. Read Chip War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_War:_The_Fight_for_the_Wo...