PleasureBot

Because you can buy anything with that $1000. Some people will buy clothes, others a new computer, others will travel etc. The demand for any one specific thing (apples, rent, netflix, etc.) will only increase a tiny fraction.

Had a good chuckle at the fearmongering about "what we call Liberalism, or Gay Race Communism".

There's really only 2 sides to the issue. You either accept mostly peaceful protests with some violence, whatever the cause may be, and trust local law enforcement and civilians to self-regulate. Or you are support authoritarianism and demand the federal government deploy the military against American citizens the first time someone throws a rock at a car.

The most common response I've heard from people who believe the government lied about the COVID vaccine is that they take issue with the word 'vaccine'. They think it should not have been described as a vaccine since you can still get COVID after getting the vaccine, and the vaccine has a certain timeframe after which it loses efficacy because the virus mutates.

Pointing out that other vaccines have these exact same properties just leads to them claiming all of those are not really vaccines and we need to stop recommending them. In their mind if its not a shot you get once, after which there is no possibility of contracting the disease, it is a hoax.

You can see exactly this train of thought in this thread from some people

The wrestling analogy is exactly how I feel watching Trump since 2016. I feel like I am watching WWE wrestling, and it is obviously fake. The actors are not actually fighting. Except half the country is completely convinced that it is real. Its hard to find common ground or even explain why I think it is fake, because it feels like it would be self-evident to anyone over the age of 12.

The discourse coming from the political right is clearly meant to attack the Judicial branch. They are going after what they call "Partisan judges" or "Activist judges" or "Radical leftist judges" or "Clinton and Obama appointees". They want to remove all judges who do not let them support whatever the administration wants to do.

The now famous photo of his hands with the "MS-13" tattoo, which is the evidence of his gang ties, was taken from CECOT. It would not surprise me in the slightest if he was forced to get that tattoo there. CECOT is widely known for torturing its prisoners, and their dictator is obviously doing anything he can to make Trump happy as he's being paid millions by Trump.

This is just a conspiracy theory but it highlights the need for due process. Without it it is very easy for governments to fabricate whatever narrative they want.

Globalization is not the cause of economic inequality. The cause is political and cultural. Since the late 1970's, the top 1% of income earners (> ~$800,000 in income) in the United States has captured 60% of economic growth as income. The top 10% (> ~$200,00 in income) of earners captured 90% of the growth. The bottom 90% of the population has captured only had 10% of the growth in wages over that time period. The US now has might have the highest income inequality that we know of in all societies, present and historical. For example, India from 40 years ago that had a strict caste system and half the population was illiterate was more egalitarian the the current day US. Apartheid South Africa was more egalitarian than the current day US.

This started in the late 70s as that is when we started dropping the progressive tax on high income earners extremely low. This incentivized senior managers at companies, who set their own compensation, to set higher and higher wages for themselves, capturing most of the economic growth of the past 50 years.

Whether you think this type of inequality is justified or not, its worth looking at closely because it is hard to imagine an economy or society continuing to function indefinitely with such extreme difference in outcome between different social groups.

I completely disagree. It still blows my mind that Law Enforcement Officers are the only group of people for whom ignorance of the law is an acceptable defense.

Congress would need a vet-proof majority to take the toys away now, which is essentially impossible in modern times. The only way this can be resolved in is if SCOTUS rules that the executive does not have the power to tariff like this, and Trump actually stops rather than just ignoring the court order.

AI has a large memory advantage in terms of what it was trained on. It also has a massive memory disadvantage in terms of its ability to update its understanding of the world. As the article points out, the context is still orders of magnitude too small for even playing a children's game, so the model forgets what it has already tried and gets stuck.

MAGA can escape the "laws of reality" as long as Trump's charisma can can paper over the gap between what is promised and lived reality. There will always be another scapegoat, another enemy preventing MAGA from reaching its societal Utopia which is just over the horizon. Trump and his administration are already explaining the economic downturn that the start of his administration caused to actually be a good thing for America. And MAGA is fully onboard with the idea that an economic recession/depression is necessary to clean out all of the alleged fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. And only afterwards can a stronger American economy be built.

Musk and even Trump cannot just step in and cut spending, programs and agencies. That's congresses job. Even a president cannot say “oh, we aren’t funding USAID/DoEd/EV tax credits”. Those things are law.

Allowing that to happen basically makes the president king. It allows them to have veto power over all spending laws both current and previous and a veto that’s unable to be overruled.

“Oh, you passed social security? No, you didn’t. I’m not giving that out”. Not only this but it gives the president extreme leverage over Congress. “I’m holding funding for this specific program ransom until you do thing X”.

Interestingly enough, that’s what Trump got impeached for during his first impeachment. Withholding funding in an attempt to extort someone. If this is allowed to happen then our constitution and government fundamentally will change.

Could just be people talking about crypto on social media directly saying that they own some. Would not be too hard to find accounts where you can clearly identify the person behind the twitter handle, facebook profile, instragram account or whatever talking about that online. We're only hearing about people who happened to lose a huge amount of money but lots of people probably fell for this scam and lost money on the scale of $100 or $1000.

Putting on my tinfoil hat for this: It sounds like parallel construction to me. I wonder if the FBI doesn't want it to get out what kind of technology the US government can use to track citizens in real time. Something like 24/7 facial recognition running in major chains like McDonalds.

The police showing up for a random tip in the boonies in PA fast enough to actually catch the guy at McDonalds and he just happens to have method and motive on him 5 days later seems too convenient. I think they ultimately got the right guy, but I don't think the 'tip' was a phone call from a McDonald's employee.

Today men represent 42% of 4 year college students. The gap between men and women enrolled in 4 year college is higher than it was before Title IX was enacted, but in the opposite direction this time. Wages are falling far behind inflation, and home ownership feels entirely out of reach for most young people due to skyrocketing housing prices. Additionally young people are more single and lonely than ever. Most of these issues do not exclusively affect men, but there are lots (millions) of young men who are unsure if they will ever be able to find a partner, own a home, and work a job that can help support a family. There's a reason toxic hyper-masculine, conservative influences have grown hugely in popularity; they are tapping into these insecurities a lot of young men are facing. Only Republicans are bothering to address this demographic with claims about how they're going to help them start their own business, improve own a home, make a decent living, etc.

Telling young men today that they actually shouldn't care about any of these things because they had it so good 60 years ago has done nothing but alienate people who might otherwise have supported Democrats.

This is just the No true Scottsman fallacy.

"Loma Linda residents have some of the highest lifespans in the world."

"Well it turns out they actually just have average lifespans."

"Only true Loma Linda residents have the highest lifespans."

If you discount everyone who died at a normal age, you can conclude that Loma Linda residents are doing something special.

Delete the file or mark it as corrupt so that the parser doesn't keep trying to read it, and send some telemetry back to CS to indicate there is a problem with the one of the channel files. It doesn't seem very complicated at all. There are plenty of options in between "catastrophically crash the OS" and "silently disable the entire product".

There's plenty of historical examples of how bad of an idea prosecuting former leaders is. When a country's leaders fear prosecution if they lose power, they have every incentive to cling to power as long as possible by any means necessary. Certainly there's a middle-ground that needs to be struck between the President they are above the law entirely and the President fearing prosecution by the next party in power regardless of how lawful they behaved. I worry that, in the U.S.'s current political climate without immunity, Presidents would be prosecuted by the other party as a matter of course.

That's not how technology typically advances. Technology advances in waves. There's an initial breakthrough that leads to rapid progress in certain areas. But after some time there are diminishing returns as the the applications of that breakthrough are fully explored, and progress slows or stops until the next breakthrough. Predicting that the trajectory of progress for the next 20 years will match the progress that has been made in the first 2 years after the LLM breakthrough seems naive at best.

I would also disagree with the idea that LLM tech is "exponentially improving" now. There was the initial release of ChatGPT which was an enormous step forward, but since then its been small iterations on the same fundamental technology. We are already seeing significantly diminishing returns in our ability to improve these models. Most available training data has already has already been fed in, 10xing the compute results in only marginal improvements in performance, etc.

Will be interesting to see how the judge views this case. Anti-trust laws mostly focus on economic harm to consumers. Obviously many modern tech companies offer their products for free and then sell the data they collect from their users. I am curious how the Justice Department will argue to the judge that economic harm is being done to consumers when Google's products are nominally free. It may be that US anti-trust laws just need to be rewritten to more effectively target tech companies because I think the Justice Department could have a hard time making this case under our current laws.

It feels very strange to read the level of willful ignorance displayed by objektif on hackernews. To ignore the context that the Pacific theater was 4.5 years of the most brutal fighting of the war, a mountain of experience demonstrating the Japanese resolve to never surrender, and the looming land invasion of Japan that at the time was predicted to likely kill 1,000,000+ US soldiers and many times more Japanese civilians is so disconnected from reality.

I would also argue that the use of those bombs saved many more lives by teaching the world a lesson about the horror of nuclear weapons. Its very possible that nuclear weapons would have been used in future conflicts when they would have been much more prevalent had it not been for the example set in WWII.

Depending on the substance and quality, the time it is detectable can be as short as 12 hours to a few days. There is a reason lots of athletes refer to drug screenings as "IQ tests". Only the dumb or careless get caught.