HN user
It's too bad that no immigrants work in construction to build more housing. If we could import lower cost laborers to build houses, that would greatly improve the housing affordability problem, but sadly, every time I go past a construction site, all I see are white guys whose great-great-great grandparents came over on the Mayflower.
is there any country an immigrant can move to, and better their lives as well as the locals' life/economy?
The United States.
It seems the world is turning hostile to immigration in general - or maybe it is just the impression I get from the media?
The world is turning hostile to immigration because the media (and social media sites) highlight and repeat the bad anecdotes, while barely mentioning the actual data showing positive outcomes.
By that argument, why should any musician get anything? They're not paying royalties to the musicians who they listened to in the past and whose songs they trained on while they learned to play.
An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.
Should everyone who used an 808 or autotune or amplifier distortion have their music be demonetized? Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?
This is the first time I have seen refusing to pay bribes framed as a moral failing and character flaw.
Perhaps it's not that he "didn't understand he was supposed to bribe" but rather that he thought that system was bad and antiquated and that he was taking a principled stand for the modern (of the time) technology industry to move away from those historical norms.
It didn't work, but he's not bad for trying.
Robots
You've picked a handful of consumer goods which have become cheaper due to technology and used them to construct a narrative entirely opposite of reality.
It would be more accurate to say the baby boomers could "work as a grunt and get what their children only dreampt of"
Single-income households, lifelong employment at the same company, people buying houses at 23 and having kids at 25, pensions, affordable health insurance, inexpensive college, people working their way up from the mail room to the C-suite. All taken for granted as typical, middle-America norms a few decades ago, but utterly unrecognizable to Millenials and Gen-Z.
Yes, people today have big TVs and air fryers. And they can use them to self-medicate briefly against the anxiety of rent that takes 40% of their post-tax income, student loans they'll be paying for the next decade and the knowledge that the whims of executives they've never met could make them lose their job tomorrow and be faced with a loss of healthcare and housing in short order.
Most people would happily downgrade their TV and drive a lower horsepower car in exchange for stable employment, no debts, no retirement worries and a spouse who doesn't have to work a corporate job.
The problem is on a thread where there is 1 AI post, people will identify 10 posts as being AI.
People latch onto the word "delve" or an em-dash or the idiom of "it's not X it's Y" as being proof that something was written by AI, without ever considering that AI is largely just writing in the style of how internet commenters write since that's a lot of the training data.
Now we've got students re-writing their homework to avoid looking like AI and commenters self-censoring against words and phrases that trigger AI suspicion.
I'm deeply skeptical that people can correctly identify human-written vs latest AI model written HN comments with sufficient accuracy.
No they don't know and if they did I would get fired obviously
And yet, above, you're still asking where the fraud is. You clearly know you're violating the terms of your employment agreement. That's the fraud. It's not complex.
OP was presumably not asking literally because they thought this was the best way to find out, they were doing so rhetorically to point out that Andrew Tate is not a person of any real significance or mainstream notoriety, who has garnered a weird amount of attention from a tiny set of terminally online people.
Basically, talking about him should be beneath the New Yorker, and the choice to publish about him drags a weird little pocket of the deep internet into the mainstream, in a way that makes us all worse off.
Using AI, I've been able to land several interviews and work 3 jobs remotely currently without much effort
Working 3 jobs is almost certainly defrauding the employers, your employment agreement likely forbids this due to IP ownership issues and expectations that you're, ya know, working for them when they're paying you and not secretly collecting a paycheck while working for a different company during the time they're paying you to work for them?
Also, unclear if you're also fraudulently claiming experience you don't have by having AI write a resume tailored to the job posting rather than representing what you've actually done.
If your 3 jobs are actually part-time jobs, with clearly delineated and compartmentalized time and work tracking and the employers are aware and the contracts allow that, then fine. But your description definitely reads like someone bragging that they're hacking the system to get away with tricking multiple employers into thinking you're working full time for them.
Does it matter if it was?
It's 2026. LLMs are integrated into text editors the same way as spell checkers and grammar checkers. Even if people write things themselves, they likely are using LLMs to review and edit.
This isn't a bot pretending to be a human, this is an official announcement from a company. It's going to be written by a committee and edited by legal and PR and marketing anyway. Who cares if one (or several) of those steps used an LLM.
So you've used AI to do fraud and you're confused why people are opposed to this?
You're the reason companies are pushing return to office and putting candidates through gauntlets of interviews and homework - because otherwise they end up hiring someone who lied on their resume and is trying to collect 3 salaries until they get caught and fired.
This anecdote may be true, but is certainly not representative of current life in America.
Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
Millions in prison, massively disproportionate to the rest of the world.
If jurors in Seattle have become skeptical of the claims that police and prosecutors make without evidence, the blame should fall squarely on decades of innocent people being sent to jail and minor infractions sending people to prison for years due to police lying, fabricating evidence, destroying evidence and prosecutors filing charges for far more severe crimes than what really occurred.
You're fortunate that your only experience of the failure of policing in America is in the most recent awakening against the unreliability of police and prosecutors. For many families, their lives have been destroyed after watching their loved ones be brutalized in prisons because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were victimized by the police and prosecutors.
would imagine that they’ve been compelled
Sadly, your imagination isn't cynical enough.
While the responsibility for the Texas grid failures, which led to multiple deaths and billions in damages, are diffuse across multiple people and organizations, if blame should be focused on one role it's the misleadingly named Railroad Commissioner who is primarily at fault (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Commission_of_Texas).
Despite the deaths, shutdown economy, massive destruction of property and suffering that the grid failures caused, the position has continued to be held by Republicans and they have not fixed the underlying issue of gas power plants that have to shut down in the cold.
If Texas gets another large ice storm, the grid will fail again, people will die again, and then 51% of the state will go vote for another Republican who won't fix anything and campaigned about preventing Sharia law (this is a real thing they run on in the primaries).
The HN title matches the submitted article title, however, it should really say "racial diversity".
If removing the legacy preference results in a working-class white kid from the Midwest getting admitted instead of a upper-class white kid from Connecticut, that's still an increase in diversity of socioeconomic class, regional background, ethnolinguistic subculture, and more.
Particularly given the alarming stories of people being prosecuted for having miscarriages
You need to delete your social media accounts and change where you're getting your news from. Nobody is "being prosecuted for having miscarriages". A few people have been investigated for drug abuse during pregnancy which led to the baby's death, which sensationalist news stories twisted into attention-grabbing headlines.
A doctor asking about cycle is just a core piece of diagnostic data like taking blood pressure and temperature, not some conspiracy to harm you.
I'm genuinely fascinated and confused by what's going on in this thread, as apparently British and American English speakers misunderstand each other.
If I understand correctly, we've got: libraryofbabel says "maybe a little too uncritical" ... but that was supposed to be British snark that actually meant "it's a big problem that it's not at all critical"
Then, moab says "Bro" as a pejorative, because he took the original "uncritical" comment as literal rather than sarcastic...
And then libraryofbabel objects to "bro" not because it was used as a pejorative (which maybe she doesn't understand that it is in this context?), but because she interprets it as gendered (which maybe it is in British usage?)
I think libraryofbabel and moab are actually in agreement about the book, and but have both misunderstood the other's sarcasm. Maybe we really do need the /s usage.
Important to note that "banned" here means "a school chose not to have this book in their library".
It's an annoying abuse of language. "Banned Books" has historically meant people are getting arrested for possessing the books or stores are being prevented from selling it or publishers are being prevented from producing it.
This is essentially a clickbait title for "People disagree about what is age-appropriate content for a public school to provide to children".
There's a political backlash because Fox News and some Russian propaganda social media accounts told people to get angry and they did.
We have mandates against leaded fuel and excessively tinted windows and for child seats. We have mandates for airbags and seatbelts and bumper heights and crumple zones and turn signals.
EVs are better than gas cars in every way - less noise, less pollution, less dependency buying oil from the Middle East. Our policies, regulations and incentive structures should mirror that.
And schools get funding from lotteries and casinos, and healthcare gets funding from alcohol and cigarette sales.
A good thing funded by taxes on a bad thing is pretty common in America.
I worry the narrative here is going off the rails.
A huge part of the Epstein saga was that he had connections to everyone, everywhere across finance, academia, entertainment, non-profits, etc and that he was constantly cultivating relationships, making and requesting introductions, giving and asking favors, etc.
Only a tiny percent of the connections ever had any interaction with sex workers or exploited girls. In many cases, Epstein was clearly using the girls as bait, to later blackmail or otherwise have leverage over men in positions of power.
The mere fact that someone interacted with Epstein shouldn't be treated as a smoking gun, if the emails are just related to regular business, fundraising, networking, etc, the odds are the person had no clue about Epstein's criminal activities and that they were in fact just 'marks' Epstein was using to grow his network of influence.
Obviously we all want the criminals to face judgement and the victims to feel justice has been done, but we can't accomplish that by just declaring the thousands of people who met Epstein to all be guilty by association.
When I was a kid the Detroit automakers bought air filters manufactured at a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin and brake pads manufactured in Peoria, Illinois and lubricants from Fort Wayne, Indiana.
And the people working in those places provided the customer base for local and regional financial services, along with the rest of the commercial base that made small towns and provincial cities good places to live and raise a family throughout the 20th century.
And of course, a household only needed one person employed, so there was less pressure to move to a bigger city that could provide opportunities for two different careers.
Remember that Musk grew up in Apartheid South Africa
And cited his opposition to apartheid as the central reason that he left the country as soon as he could, at age 17, because he didn't want to be a part of that system.
There are so many legitimate reasons to criticize Musk, but this isn't one.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
You are, about pretty much all of this.
Being a market maker doesn't provide any special information. I'm guessing someone misunderstood something like Level II quotes (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/06/level2quote...) as being information that hedge funds / investment banks / pros have that retail traders don't... but it's just semi-public information that anyone can pay for access to.
Jane Street also isn't doing pump and dumps, they're not in crypto discord channels hyping some coin or running bot farms of twitter accounts to talk up some stock.
They run several different types of trading that might interact with other people attempting pump & dumps though, which could impact in either direction- plausibly they might do a momentum trade that follows the direction of movement or they might recognize a price discrepancy happening and trade against it.
More accurately, they have complex models pulling in many, many signals to inform trading, and I'm being a bit reductionist to categorize it as these two things.
That's not fringe at all. That was a claim made by anti-drug commercials that ran on TV across the US so frequently that it was satirized by South Park in 2002.
See the "Where did the idea come from" section here: https://southpark.cc.com/w/index.php?title=My_Future_Self_n%...
This seems like a lot of different people voicing different opinions and talking past each other. Roughly, I think you're jumping into the middle of a hypothetical conversation that went like this:
Person A: "It's bad that we throw people in prison for pot, and use possession of pot as a subtext under which to harass people, perform warrantless searches, etc. We should just legalize it."
Person B: "But it might be bad for children and teenagers if they get access to it"
Person A: "Okay fine, we legalize it for people over the age of 21, happy now?"
Person A could be said to have compromised or ceded-ground to person B here, even though they themselves might actually not even disagree.
It's maybe slightly less trivial to do, but still incredibly common to buy awards, recognition, press releases, positive reviews and commentary in publications.
You might be shocked to find out how much the performers being written about in magazines or discussed on TV shows is a direct line to the production company promoting them. Similar for awards.
For the same people accept Tether's claims of solvency even though they refuse audits and obviously lie about ownership of various assets. For the same reason people ignore wash trading. For the same reason people continue using Sam-coins even after FTX's implosion.
Because A) they're not paying attention, B) they're in denial and C) because they think they can profit in the short term before it collapses, or that the odds are in their favor to profit despite the risks.
The parent comment, and the series of messages they linked to, are such peak "terminally online" content that I suspect nothing one can write here can help.
The paranoia and distrust is so intense that every statement will be seen as a coded phrase, "dog whistle" or obscure reference to some sinister thing.
Which is particularly unfortunate, because I think Elon's tweet is genuinely wrong and bad. But it kinda feels like these people need to disconnect from the internet and go for a walk. Maybe have a real life conversation with a real life regular person on the other side of the political aisle.
An interesting secondary affect of this, is that today Wikipedia is flooded with misleading attribution in the opposite direction, from presumably well-meaning groups and individuals who are overzealous in their goal of writing the women back into the record.
Groups like https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/editing-w..., https://wikimediafoundation.org/participate/rewrite/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_sc... approach the problem as activists rather than archivists, and edit articles not because they're seeking accuracy or because they've deeply researched a topic and discovered errors, but just on belief that the world is a better place today if the history books have more female protagonists.
I'm of the view that acknowledging the systemic discrimination that prevented women, Black people, and even working-class whites from having the opportunity to pursue scientific research historically is better than rewriting history to elevate tangential assistants into leading researchers. But, maybe diverse representation in the stories we tell is more important for the future than accuracy of those stories, it's hard to know.