stahtops

Pick your favorite place on the planet. Then tell me if 8 billion people can live there, and would it be the same place if they did?

I know the answer to both of these questions, and so do you.

People charge at home: no $ People charge at work: business has to eat the cost, can’t have that.

If this fee makes sense, then they should also remove any existing taxes for roads and assess the fee to every car.

Do you think you are American?

We require individual humans to be licensed to drive and can revoke that license as needed.

Some people only bought the sandwich because of the chips. If chips weren't offered they would have bought lunch from someone else across the street.

If you divided the competitors into “has freakishly long arms” and “doesn’t have freakishly long arms” groups to compete within, and Phelps met the metrics for freakishly long arms, are you saying you think he should be free to compete in either group?

If so, there was no point in dividing into groups.

That said, I am sure athletes and governing bodies could agree on a better solution than outright banning- for example all it takes is a group that pairs a freakishly long armed swimmer with not, and they compete as pairs. Or an open group- maybe someone without freakishly long arms will find a way to win.

Anyway, it’s sports, people will min/max everything you let them, and we know from history they may bend or break rules as well. At the end of the day someone has to make a rule and enforce it, over time it will evolve.

If you prefer ai slop, let me introduce you to moltbook! Some of the ai agents there were even trained by humans being paid by pedophilic fascist speed freaks, so they tend to be more amenable to that sort of thing than your typical human.

Why downplay the mass surveillance aspect by saying it's a request by "the military". It's a request by the department of defense, the parent organization of the NSA.

From what has been shared publicly, they absolutely did ask for contractual limits on domestic mass surveillance to be removed, and to my read, likely technical/software restrictions to be removed as well.

What the department of defense is legally allowed to do is irrelevant and a red herring.

You don’t work in hardware. Now someone has to open a box and put a charger in? And you have to ship air for the other SKU? How much fuel/energy was wasted shipping empty space?

No one is going to do that. They’re going to package them separately and ship the box. And the onus is STILL on the user to manually add a charger to their cart. When they forget or don’t realize, they’ll complain, just like people are complaining here.

The EU made a bad rule. They should have exempted electronics above a certain price point. Their rule only really makes sense in the context of junk that costs $9.99 being shipped with a cheap charger and cables that no one wants.

You’re right, the analogy makes no sense. And what’s more, Dario didn’t make the analogy. This blogger took a partial quote out of context and constructed a blog post around it.

If you listen to the interview, Dario is talking about the Trump trade deal with Nvidia being allowed to sell H200 chips to China, but the USA gets some taxes. He thinks it’s a bad deal for long term national security. He likens it to “selling NK nuclear weapons and bragging that the casings are made by Boeing”.

It’s not about AI/nukes being equivalents- it’s about making a bad deal with a rival, giving them something they want / reducing your superiority, just so you can brag about having made a deal.

That’s not what Dario said. This guy Ben took a partial quote and then used it to construct a strawman. And hey look, he was successful, you bought it.

Dario criticized the Trump admin policy of allowing Nvidia to sell advanced chipsets to China as being poor for long term national security. He said our model edge is dependent on the HW edge, and likened this Trump “deal” to selling nuclear weapons to NK and bragging that the casings were made by Boeing. You can go watch the video yourself.

He was attacking the Trump trade deal as being bad, and characterizing Trump as more concerned with being able to name drop a US company and say he made a great deal, rather than actually doing what is in the best interest of the country.

Do you just believe everything you read on the internet? Or was it Ben the bloggers amazing credentials of being an Apple INTERN in the company culture group? He’s a real philosopher king I’m sure.

Yea that’s how regulations work. If the EU wanted both options then it should have specified that.

This is on the EU. Not bundling a charger with electronics that cost hundreds of dollars/euros is dumb, and having it be a requirement is even dumber.

And yea I’m definitely still salty from the time I bought a 3DS and then got on a 14hr flight to Shanghai, only to find out it didn’t come with the proprietary charger.

If that’s what the EU wants then why didn’t they require it?

If you’re forced to break the two components into two SKUs, that’s what you’re going to do- optimize. Not make a third SKU to add confusion. What if you’re out of stock of the charger-less SKU? Does that put you in violation of EU rules?

Sorry, but literally what are you talking about?

If Ford sells Broncos, and Pete Hegseth says “I’m Batman, we want them with RPG launchers”, Ford is not required to create Bronco’s with RPG launchers.

If Pete wants AI killer robots and AI domestic mass surveillance tools, he can go put out a RFQ like literally any other DOD DARPA project in history and get bids.

If the T&C is agreed to up front, why shouldn't they be able to? If their client or potential client doesn't like the T&C, they can find another vendor.

Sovereign like King George III?

Fascinating to cherry pick while trying to color an article as biased. Couldn’t even include an entire sentence?

“The incidents included a collision with a fixed object at 17 miles per hour, a crash with a bus while the Tesla vehicle was stopped, a crash with a truck at four miles per hour, and two cases where Tesla vehicles backed into fixed objects at low speeds.”

Anecdata, my i3 range was not perceptibly reduced after ~8 years, 82k miles. But the pack was thermally managed, and from what I understand, also didn’t allow you to go to true 0 or true 100 SOC.

Tesla lets you use it all, which gets bigger range numbers (for a time) but at the cost of degradation, if you use it.

You should answer for yourself why any of the three stopping methods would result in more or less tire wear than the other.

Plenty of ICE cars let you control the transmission, and not just MT. Engine braking is effectively the same as regen braking to tires.

Regen is lossy, so there’s no incentive in slowing down to capture 1W just to speed up and spend 1.1W

Porsche has modes for coast and regen. Applying brakes in coast mode will use regen up to a threshold and then use conventional pad/rotor.

So I am sorry to inform you that you’re just wrong.

There are EVs that can coast.

EVs are not braking more.

Whether you use conventional brakes, engine braking, or regen braking, it’s all the same to the tires.

Porsche

Where? My minimum delivery charge is $0.41 a day.

Putting aside for a moment that 30% of nothing is nothing, where are you even getting this idea that someone got a 30% tax reduction?

Look at the plot you shared "Personal Taxes: Federal Income Taxes by Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Third 20 Percent (41st to 60th Percentile)"

2015: 1854

2016: 1954 (+100)

2017: 2170 (+216)

2018: 2676 (+506)

2019: 2519 (-157)

What about these numbers makes you think that the third quintile on average got a 30% tax cut?

I think it really depends on your use case, your commute, and lifestyle.

For me an EV has been great, but it’s not my only car. I can charge at work for free, or at home with solar. Even if I’m paying 30-60 cents/kWh, it’s way cheaper per mile than my gas cars.

Maintenance… there’s none. Just consumables like washer fluid, tires, wipers.

But that said you need to be able to charge at home, and your range needs to be right sized to your commute/lifestyle. When correct it’s better than a gas cars- it’s always full and ready to go. If the range is wrong or you can’t conveniently charge it, it is a chore.

Personally an automatic transmission does nothing for me, I’ll take the unrelenting acceleration of the EV over that any day. But a 6spd is more fun!

The USA has no negative income tax. There are programs like the EITC which provide benefits to the poor and can be larger than their tax burden depending on the specific circumstances.

The EITC was initially signed into law by Ford (R) and expanded by Reagan (R). Regan apparently called it "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress".

I'm sure you knew all this, so thanks for being honest in this post about the fact that you would like to dismantle this particular social safety net.

Seething comment sounds like projection btw, I'm not mad. The whole point of HN is to have the discussion expand in detail. Seems like it's working:

- Someone generalized - You called them a liar - We found out the generalization wasn't strictly correct, but basically true in spirit: the wealthy received the majority of the benefit, the poor got a small token for the sake of statistics / sound bytes.

It’s your link buddy, just quoting your own source.

$780 is insignificant.

Tax policy is written by humans, and they can do what they like with it. If you want to cut taxes for the poor, you do. If you want to cut taxes for the ultra wealthy, but make sure the statistics say poor people got a tax cut, you can do that too.

If you paid 1M in taxes, a 30% cut is 300k, and if you paid 1k it’s $300. One person will buy some bitcoin or a Porsche, the other will be lucky to buy some gas and groceries.

Both got a 30% tax cut, but it would be goofy to claim they have equivalent value.

If you wanted to be an honest person, maybe you correct the poster that there were tax cuts for the poor, but also point out that the cuts heavily favored the wealthy. Which by the way, was their argument.

The tax savings were relatively small for many families, however. The middle fifth of earners got about a $780 tax cut last year on average, according to the Tax Policy Center.

The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock.

Don’t be part of the problem Marcus. The reality is cutting taxes for the poor by $2/day, for the rich by $80/day, and telling everyone they got a tax break with a straight face… while you simultaneously cut services, issue policies that cause inflation, and levy taxes domestically on the poor through tariffs is the republican way!

How much extra do you need? Enough that a pilot/crew doing their job properly will never run out of fuel and crash.

So yes they will do an "investigation". It's not a criminal investigation. It's to understand the circumstances, the choices, the procedures, and the execution that ended with a plane dangerously close to running out of fuel.

This will determine if there were mistakes made, or the reserve formula needs to be adjusted, or both.

Don't tell me about cost, just stop. Let MAGA-Air accept some plane deaths to have cheap fares.

Actually it’s very convenient to have control of the thermostat remotely.

The lesson here (once again) is just: don’t buy hardware from Google