Lonestar1440

No one has watched Ukraine unfold and said "Yes, it will indeed be easy for me to invade a smaller but technically sophisticated neighbor"

China will never invade Taiwan, but they will unite politically one day.

Between this and the Headlight situation, it's bad out there. One of those issues where the two-party politics are really toxic and prevent any action.

Realistically, we need a new license class for vehicles >3T. This would mean anything from the biggest F-150 on up. It doesn't have to be any harder to get than a motorcycle cert, but we should put some burden on the driver to show that they know how to handle a big vehicle.

That and a common sense rule on headlights could get pedestrian deaths back where they were a decade ago.

We've already stopped the "Worst case scenarios" by rapidly replacing Carbon-intensive energy with other sources over the past decade:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/climate/emissions-worst-c...

Still work to be done, and also plenty of reasons for optimism. Batteries, motors, and carbon free generation only get better.

You need a certain baseline of power and influence in order to inspire a backlash like what we're seeing in the US.

It happens because so many Scientists are influential, and in particular because of the way that influence was used during COVID.

(I enthusiastically take my vaccines)

Right. A lot of "Internet Freedom" is just dishonest Anarchism. A thought terminating cliche that halts otherwise brilliant people from actually considering the tradeoffs of policies like this.

The whole appeal of Anarchy is that The State always has the potential to become Evil. So, at a (very quick) first pass - eliminating The State kinda seems like it heads off some bad futures.

While some of the HN commentariat may be anarchists, you and I at least are not.

Back in 2008, we'd perfected the art of combining high-grade and dogshit Mortgages into one Security which could be sold on to, of course, Pension Funds.

Took almost 20 years for someone to find a way to scale up the basic Scam Mechanics and try again.

If you like SpaceX's launch business (the Grade A mortgage that you personally hold and pay), know that you can't get it without xAI (The dogshit that's already delinquent)

I've done this. I'm very surprised that, in your case, the POA was not sufficient to get your business done.

I'm not sure what alternative you are proposing. This only gets much, much worse when the aging person is trying to use a password...

There are no other online choices. If my Bank login goes totally Kaput, though, I can take my ID down to the Branch to get it sorted. Same with my telecom provider.

I try to only depend on services which have this property. I don't succeed.

If Claude meetups are the new Tupperware parties, OpenClaw meetups are something darker still. The tech is indeed worth discussion and celebration, but the Brands are clearly taking too much.

This is a really important insight. Great comment.

Fair point. I'll never argue against greater police accountability.

This would indeed be the best outcome. A framework of accountability we all trust and modern tools to do their job.

Is a dozen replies on a forum really so much?

And yes, I will wave to the SF speed cameras I pass today.

How about we eliminate Police entirely, since they will inevitably misuse any power we give them?

Of course we have to strike a balance. We just disagree on where "cameras on a public road" fall on the scale.

Your terms are acceptable.

That's not what the killed legislation did, though.

I don't regard complete anonymity on a public roadway to be an "Essential Liberty" and neither would the Founders.

Were the lists really the problem though?

Or was it the Genocidal Intent?

The first mass killings, on the Eastern Front, made no use of such sophistication and had no need of it.

It's always Politics.... Terrible ones in the case of WW2 Germany.

This is such a silly perspective and it stands in the way of making things better.

Cops are not going away. And we're not going to hide from them through Cyber-Libertarianism.

We can either accept the status quo or, yes, push for more accountability from the agents of the state.

The FBI has been an IBM customer for a very long time.

Like maybe the "cheap cameras everywhere" part is novel + important, but "central data store" truly is not.

Slippery reasoning like this is how silly taboos get perpetuated.

... And what do you think stops them from revoking the passports, today?

Do you think it is Courts and the looming Midterms; or are they just flummoxed by the lack of good surveillance data?

It's really a fantasy and a silly Taboo.

Our Democracy will live or die by politics, not silly rules on data collection at the margins.

Why would they "almost certainly" have been caught otherwise?

This is a load bearing component of your argument and it seems thin.

From my perspective, you are synthesizing a harm while ignoring the clear and concrete contribution.

I am not harmed when I go through a toll plaza or an express lane.

Nor when I pass a flock camera.

You are boxing with phantoms, I think.

We need to tighten the legal guardrails around this data and punish cops who misuse it.

This would move society in a positive direction.

Making the data itself a Taboo, just to avoid jailing bad cops, does not.

We need to ensure a diverse student body - by making sure that smart kids of every race, class, and culture are given a thorough math education.

The K-12 public schools in California fail too many kids; and far too many poor, minority kids. Rather than fix this, we ban 8th grade algebra because we don't like the racial makeup of the advanced math track.

We can, in fact, have it both ways. But it will take change and be resisted by people who, ironically, claim to be helping the poor minorities most hurt today.

Fair enough, if you're certain the final bill will only penalize "false advertising" like this. I see how the article supports this view and maybe I did read too much into it. My concern would be if games "sold as a subscription" did end up covered by it.

What if an Indie developer wants to make a game, where the primary mechanics and state live in a "service" they control? Why should they be burdened with this stuff if they move on, if indeed they sold a "service" and not a piece of software?

My view has nothing to do with Corporations... I just really don't understand what players feel they are entitled to here. If you want "software" then buy that, and don't use the Service games.

Unpopular view I suppose. Maybe it would mean more games you could actually own, but I think it would just have bad effects.

The "final boss" of bad legislation. Often, Government intrusion into the markets is worth the side effects.

But in this case, even the best-case outcome is extremely dumb. Companies are forced to expend resources just so a few niche hobbyists are not inconvenienced. And there will be side effects, ultimately including geo-fencing of games to exclude California. It's a big market, but you can't make up for a net loss with volume.

Yes, I think that the phones of minors should be traceable back to their parents; who would provide their ID at the sale of the e-SIM.

I agree that we need better case law - downstream of better politicians and better judges - to apply the intent of the 4th to modern society.

And if you think we need a new ammendment to strengthen it, i'm in for that as well.

These are all real solutions

Making "Privacy" easier is not a real solution. The panopticon will get you whether you use a VPN or a burner or whatever.

The only solutions are political.

It's a reference to Spaceballs, not the state fwiw

Privacy has to be one goal among many in a reasonable society.

I am very glad to see this change, because phone-based Fraud is a plague on the Elderly and other vulnerable members of society. And an incredible annoyance even to a security conscious professional.

The guard against intrusive and oppressive government is the Bill of Rights, not some easy ability to get a phone number anonymously.

This just seems like kneejerk anti-Nuclear stance in disguise. Maybe you did intend it as just a neutral observation but it's hard to take it that way.

Like maybe you're right... why not also support Nuclear plants, which we in fact need for baseload energy? Surely there are better places to cut the budget than other carbon-free energy sources.

I have no argument with building out solar and wind maximally. I will always push for new Nuclear as part of the mix.