35,074 karma · joined March 11, 2008
The clear purpose of the regulation was exactly the "side effect" detailed in the article: hurting immigrant communities that maintain ties across the border. And it worked. It does no one any good to pretend otherwise.
Really both sides are insane in this battle. People are angry about social change, injustice, perceived loss of status and are taking out those frustrations on totems like "Buildings Owned by Big Tech". Which is wrong. But it's equally wrong to ignore those concerns and try to align with their political enemies, which only makes this worse. (We saw exactly this thing happen with the vaccine madness just half a decade ago!)
To wit: we're all going to hell in a handbasket and this community is 100% as much at fault as the big data opposition front.
I mean, yes. Amazon can likely do this. But is this strategy really in keeping with its long term interests? I mean, look at the comments in the rest of this very topic. Do you want a communist insurrection? This is literally how you get communist insurrections. People are fucking pissed, and the bourge^M^M^M^M funding-focused growth-minded startup set here are throwing gasoline on the fire.
If you take a service that you told someone was "always free" and start charging them for that, that's a lie. It just is. I'm gobsmacked that this community views this as acceptable marketing. Is this the moral foundation of our new era of startup overlords?
I mean, you're very perceptive! But that's not very interesting, it's sort of the price of admission here at HN. Oracle lying in its product naming is more so.
When they offer something "always"... yes? Are "always" and "forever" not synonyms?
I'm not arguing about the economics or motivation, just pointing out that simple language says that they lied.
Rather, I'm assuming that the "Is there protection in place for when the AI tries to backdoor github projects?" test was, if it was done at all, insufficient.
I mean, yes, I'm being glib and laughing at you a bit. But, dude... If your point is that isolation testing of AI is fundamentally impossible, then that's just silly. As pointed out upthread, an airgap would have (1) been trivial to implement and (2) extremely effective.
Exactly. This logic is precisely why aircraft engineering doesn't bother with component testing or envelope limitation during testing and just full-sends the first assembled airliner that comes off the line. The engines aren't going to run on the ground in real life, after all.
THAT SAID, "Eugenics" as espoused and understood over the past two centuries isn't that at all. It's 100%, every time, a pretty face for racism. Human social and ancestry divisions ARE NOT the product of deliberate selection, never have been, and any attempt to conflate the ideas is, yeah, pretty fucking unsound. And horrifying.
Now being a founder is such a valuable status that it's attracting people who thinking that ghoulish worshipful body art (on the bodies of people afflicted with the same status envy, it needs to be pointed out) is a great idea.
Do the nerds even have a home anymore?
So why does that principle change when some people are poor or when the tax structure is progressive?
Even skipping the moral argument, there's a game theory trap here: let's say you run a government and your political enemies are on the poor side and fall into the "no vote" trap more often than your supporters. Obviously the solution to maximizing your share of the vote is to make them even poorer.
"The Market", at this scale, means "You find the buyer(s) yourself and work up the deal with a hundred lawyers and PR staff and hope the contract negotiation stays secret".
Are any commercial mobile phone vendors not able to do such a thing? Do remember that this giant kerfuffle is all over the seeming preparation for the apparent removal of a developer feature that iPhones have never had at all.
If you want to oppose imperialist scum, this makes sense. If you want the global economy to not be shit, it doesn't.
Iran did bad things, but not as much as they could. Now they're doing more bad things and we can't stop them.
Now you're saying I'm wrong because there are other socialized forms than NHS that work too. Well, OK! I submit. Use one of those.
Yeah, so... my question stands: name one you're thinking of, even if you qualify that it isn't an "endorsement". I contend there isn't one and you're fooling yourself.
Not for anyone who needed them! If you were already sick, you would die poor without coverage. Are we really continuing to have this discussion?[1]
The market failed in this case. We all know it.
[1] Just to short circuit: you'll want to deflect to a non-economic discussion of whose "fault" it was that they were stuck with a pre-existing condition. But my point is: who cares? There was a product and a consumer which could not be exchanged at a reasonable price in an unregulated environment. And that's bad regardless of fault (doubly or triply so because it's a really important product).
Employer health care may have bad externalities, but it has the extremely important (but... maybe invisible to the median libertarian) property that it constitutes collective bargaining. You can force insurers to cover folks they wouldn't want to otherwise by bringing more customers (employees) to the table.
It's so weird that even now, with the ACA having been proved out over decades, that we have to have these weird free market arguments. It didn't work, guys. It's not a good that works well in an efficient market sense.
Right, so you want to know how many people own homes, not how many homes are "occupied" by an owner[1], which is at best a proxy, right? Sounds like you're agreeing with me but just getting the sides of the argument mixed up?
[1] As the article points out, a single person can in fact "occupy" more than one home!
Genuine question: who, precisely, cares about "incentivising owner occupancy" as a policy goal? What interest does that serve and why should the government prioritize maximizing that metric?
Basically right now we measure "what fraction of homes are occupied by an owner" and not "what fraction of people live in their own home?". It seems bleedingly obvious that the latter is the number we should be maximizing, if either. And in particular it seems to me that a lot of argument about the former is actually using it as a proxy for the latter anyway.
No one cares about the poor homes who don't have local owners!
TikTok competes with Meta, not Olivia Rodrigo or BTS.
Only with some industries, mostly electronics and light manufacturing. The rest of the history of software products doesn't look like this at all. China cloned Amazon and Meta fairly well (but only within their local/captured markets) but not Microsoft or Google and absolutely not Apple. Entertainment and culture exports are still effectively zero (like, what, three blockbuster films?) where the US, Japan and Korea define pop across the globe. Heavy industry is mixed, with decent success in consumer vehicles now but little purchase in stuff like heavy equipment or shipbuilding.
Basically it's complicated, and not really a point well suited to that kind of generalism.