HN user
It's burning 3x as much coal as it did 20 years ago and doesn't seem to be dropping at all (2024 was more than 2023, 2025 will be at least as much as 2024).
Seems to be someone pretending an objective fact isn't true for reasons that escape me.
What is it you're accusing them of?
"More business happens under comparatively pro-business Administration" is certainly a revelation.
I don't mean to be snarky but "I counted things on Wikipedia" is not exactly slam dunk proof when the GP was all but saying Trump is selling antitrust immunity on the open market.
Do you have any evidence that you can just bribe your way past antitrust regulations (which are enforced by hundreds or maybe even thousands of attorneys across the political spectrum) or is this just how you feel because you don't like who is in the White House right now?
On the sixth application does someone knock on your door?
legacies tend to have stronger academic profiles
Maybe for Harvard, but I'm not sure a legacy for some random private liberal arts school nobody has ever heard of (or $STATE University) will be any more academically gifted than someone whose parents both went to college anyway.
Maybe we need to differentiate between "legacy of a school" and "legacy of a school with a historically high academic quality"
What do either of those quoted statements have to do with public universities specifically?
To most of the people working on these AI systems I'm willing to bet work in 90% of their waking life or more.
Using AI for specific tasks at work is definitionally not "integrating AI into your life."
You might use a badge to open a door at work but that doesn't mean your integrating badge-door access control systems into your daily life. It's a tool that you only use at work.
This only makes sense if you have to test each fix in complete isolation which seems silly even for government employees and contractor body shops. You can't batch 80 real bug fixes and 20 "silly bug with no practical impact" fixes together?
Any argument that includes "they should just" isn't even worth typing or considering as a real policy. They won't just. Nobody will just.
You were using LLMs in 2012?
You seem to be arguing that government regulation, on its face, is default-good while the GP seems to be arguing that it is default-bad. I bet if you actually engage with the argument in good faith instead of dismissing your imaginary strawman there could be a good conversation! But no the GP disagrees with you, so is therefore a complete moron, so no discussion will be had I suppose.
In Comments
Be kind. Don't be snarky.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says
Please don't post shallow dismissals
Then why does this thread have 1800 comments when most HN threads have a small fraction of that? Half of them are just people virtue signaling that they're no longer paying for this VPN service.
It's just an add for the VPN
What makes them far-right?
Europe's Overton window being about a football field away from sanity.
Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Believes that there are, at times, technical solutions to both technical and non-technical problems does not make someone a "technofascist."
You do not have to stop for a bus if there is a divided median and you're opposing traffic. For the team example, you don't know if someone from the team is going to cross the street so of course you still stop. "This is taking too long" is not a realistic reason to pass a school bus with a giant flashing stop sign on the side of it.
If you've heard the phrase "it doesn't get easier, you just get stronger" in regards to the gym, I think it's similar for shipping products. I don't feel less nervous about shipping now than I did 15 years ago, but 1) I'm at least marginally better at this than I was then, and most importantly 2) I don't take feedback as personally as I did then.
Feedback is either positive or negative, constructive or not. If it's positive, great. Maybe that gives you some insight into how your work is positively affecting people. If it's negative and constructive, great! Someone is taking time out of their day to tell you how to make your product better, for free. Print the feedback out and hang it on the wall. If it's negative and not constructive, who cares?
Courts are not solving math equations and despite the popular belief to the contrary, most lawyers and judges are not bumbling fools. But to use math as an example of why you don't need an "impractically high" number of witnesses:
- Let's assume "reasonable doubt" is 0.1%, so you need to be 99.9% sure someone is guilty before voting them guilty
- Let's assume a random witness to a random crime has a 5% chance of getting some material fact wrong through no fault of their own
- Let's assume that if you are on trial, there is a 20% chance you are guilty, based on the assumption if you're guilty and know you're cooked you're more likely to plea out, so the people remaining at trial are the truly innocent, the guilty who think they can beat the case, and the guilty who are just rolling the dice.
In reality, witnesses are probably more than 95% accurate with material facts, especially when these are collected in isolation at different times, probably by different police officers.
And if we're being honest with ourselves, a lot more than 1 out of 5 people on trial are guilty of what they're being charged with. The bar for a DA to bring charges is very high, their entire careers are based on conviction rate.
This just means that you can't insist someone is innocent despite overwhelming evidence just because they didn't leave any forensic evidence behind which is completely reasonable.
It's commonly forgotten that the bill of rights simply restricts the government. For nearly 100 years it didn't even apply to state governments but just the federal government.
Who decides whether or not someone is an immediate threat? Is "immediate threat" even the bar for a police officer to draw their weapon? Police can draw their weapons in situations civilians can't legally so I'm not sure the same standards apply.
I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.
Is it legal to shoot a uniformed police officer pulling a gun on someone?
Ah yes, that old adage :)
Then you will have a lot of Constitution amendments.
You say that like it's a bad thing?
The burden of ever-changing law landscape will be carried by ordinary people, not by legislators.
The "burden" would also include, for the most part, being able to look up at any given point in time whether something violated the law without referring to hundreds of thousands of pages of other codes, administrative law, and agency rules.
I have long thought that capping the number of representatives in the House is the single worst thing to happen, structurally, to the United States government. Representatives should be as close to the people as possible, and spending millions every two years to represent nearly 3/4 of a million people isn't even close.
In this very comment I started talking about the patriot act two or three times but kept deleting it because I didn't want to ramble. But yeah that's exactly what I was thinking of - for people who care about privacy and freedom it was really one of the worst pieces of legislation in modern US history, and permanently changed the country for the worse.
Why would you think I'm making that completely different argument?
If the current scenario is bad, and someone says "we should do this other thing that would be even worse," pointing out that the other thing is worse isn't an endorsement of the current (bad) scenario.
I think it's more a function of who it employs. If you're able to get a job at NASA you're able to get a job a lot of other places.
This is not necessarily true for large segments of the DOD.