bryant

Ugh, and unfortunately, this meme makes perfect sense in this context.

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_bounty_program

Regardless of the point, this language is extremely unhelpful here, especially considering op tried with good intent to help people dealing with the issue.

And there are other analogies too, e.g with certain diseases being "functionally cured" vs "cured." Did the GP use the wrong word? Sure. But making that the sole focus of criticism misses the intent of the GP and the greater value of the whole comment, which instructs people on how to disable it so that it's functionally non-impactful.

Keep an eye out for the monthly "who wants to be hired?" thread that'll be posted on Tuesday July 1st and post there.

You can see the June 2025 thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44159525

People still look at the current month's posts, but you'll probably have better traction with the changeover. Likewise check the Who's Hiring post the same day.

Enterprise Holdings manages theirs via fleet, so while a BMW ID can be added, the car is generally fleet restricted. Includes restrictions on capabilities like using (the cursed) subscription "features" you've paid for.

So yeah at least one of the big renters has handled it appropriately on the cars I've rented from them.

The query was exactly as you described. Gemini returned the details of the Dreamliner Air India crash, including capturing the number of people aboard the flight, the date of the flight, the location of the flight and crash - yet Gemini somehow managed to hallucinate the wrong plane, an Airbus A330-243.

Air India doesn't even have any A330s, so it's not even immediately obvious how the hallucination happened. It just straight up included the wrong plane.

This specific failure seems more egregious than most.

For anyone keen on dissecting this further, they uploaded enough to github for people to dive into their approach in depth.

https://github.com/am-bean/HELPMed (also linked in the paper)

50%, probably not.

0.1%? Probably. And that's probably the highest that number has been in millennia.

You did mention "the end of humanity in my lifetime" after all.

They're different mindsets. Some folks are better editors, inspectors, auditors, etc, whereas some are better builders, creators, and drafters.

So what you're saying makes sense. And I'm definitely on the other side of that fence.

There's probably some truth to this idea (https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/84/1/24/575807...), even though it comes across as a low effort comment up front.

New horizons launched 9.5 years before it reached Pluto, and your average reader who has an interest in Planet 9 will likely know it took New Horizons about that long.

15x means no one alive today will see a mission that reaches the planet, and that's more accessible for most readers per above.

In fact, with apple providing this service, it's objectively worse — if apple declines to refund you and you charge back via card, apple (and Google etc) will just ban your account.

Removing apple and google from the payment chain mitigates this risk.

> "Deports" is wrong word for removing a citizen. "Expels" would be more appropriate.

While this is true, the use of what's technically the wrong word highlights that the wrong action is being applied.

The action is a deportation. The targets are people who must/shall not ever be deported. Therefore the headline immediately gets attention for concisely describing a violation.

> [Boeing] would sell four businesses from a digital unit to Thoma Bravo, a private equity firm specializing in software. Those include Jeppesen, which provides navigational charts and information to pilots, and ForeFlight, an app that helps plan flights and monitor weather.

I don't imagine any PE company would prioritize opex on quality assurance, so this is yet another hairline crack in the pylons keeping the engines attached to the airline industry.

They're not really cracking down on one over the other. They're cracking down on what they view as undesirable viewpoints.

"All other countries"

Britain

Canada

Germany

New Zealand

Italy

Australia

France

Spain

Switzerland

Norway

Portugal

---

I'm surprised Australia placed relatively low compared to the others. But yeah, that answers the question of which single countries are the most attractive. But none are overwhelmingly importing expats.

In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs.

As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.") implies that both policies would've been equal when in fact it's quite clear even from your links that the two approaches would've been different - Biden/Harris' surgical application vs Trump's current blanket tariffs.

The repeated implication that the two policies would be equivocal is at best a failure to understand the debate and, at worst, in bad faith.

[0] https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-pr... - "This isn’t normally the way presidents act when it comes to tariffs. Additional tariffs are generally imposed very selectively, under trade remedy statutes crafted by Congress. They are actions taken pursuant to a finding that a particular product is involved in a specified unfair trade act, or it may be that the new tariff is a surgical retaliatory measure to open a market for a specified American product."

---

Went ahead and chucked the thread into archive.is so it's not lost to the sands of time. I guess now I'll bow out in a manner that's not valid :)

> Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.

87% of Trump voters during Oct 23-25 2024 at least slightly believed that "American jobs are insecure right now and our future prosperity is under threat."[0]

I reckon I don't have to point at what's been going on the last few months. It's certain that the election going the other way would've at least not resulted in the current debacle.

> Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now.

Implying that tariffs of this magnitude would've been inevitable[1][2] regardless of the government elected shows a lack of good-faith participation in this conversation, so I'll move on. Cheers, mate.

[0] Cambridge/YouGov survey finalized Nov 7 2024. https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/docume... // press release https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/trump-voters-2024

[1] Harris policy proposals budget model, noting no tariffs and reasonably assumed to have remained consistent with a Harris win. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/harri...

[2] Trump policy proposals budget model, noting the anticipated 10+% tariffs that have since materialized, including retaliation etc. from trading partners. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump...

The main reminder here (not even really a novel takeaway - this ends up happening like clockwork in some shape or form every few generations) is that laws can only be enforced after the damage is done.

Short of overwhelming activism e.g in the form of recall elections where applicable, constitutional conventions, etc., the degradation of both the rule of law and the standing of the United States on the world stage will continue for the next 21 months. And there's every reason to believe that voters suffering today will again be swayed through misinformation to vote against their own interests in the November 2026 congressional elections.

It helps to quote who you're replying to when you reply with this much effort; it keeps your reply accurate.

Anyway,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646642

I'm not as engaged in this topic as you are, likely because I'm not as ideologically fixated on it. But the idea that the Tariff Act had a significant negative impact is well analyzed (e.g above), hence the consensus.

Wish you the best.

> Half of the Great Depression was caused by tariffs.

The downvotes might be because it's unrelated to the discussion, but it's also not really wrong. The exact impact of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act probably can't be quantified, but it's well agreed that it contributed significantly to the extent of the depression itself due to the retaliatory tariffs triggered and the resulting drop in global trade. (Institutional access needed - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-...)

In all seriousness (aside from all the comments stating they'd ordered it. Hey, I just did myself), it's interesting seeing Meta go after the employee but seemingly not make much of an effort to go after the publisher.

What would they hope to gain going after any of it so late anyway? Surely if their goal is to dissuade others from publishing tell-alls, the resulting publicity from their suits against this one would do the opposite? If they really wanted to stop the book, they should've gone after it early before publication, but it seems like they dropped the ball and are doing more damage to themselves trying to catch up.

The same business activity that's also drastically slowing down? https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

Can you just link the video at the very top and indicate in the first paragraph that you were directly inspired by the video? It's only fair.

Yeah, I suppose I binned the "other" voters as no-votes, but thanks for pointing it out.

Practically speaking, when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies, what mitigations are left? The courts are themselves slow and ultimately roll up to allies of the despot.

People say that the midterms are crucial, but the midterms are only likely to be won if Democrats truly unify and apply winning strategies. Sadly the only winning strategies now seem to involve telling stories, not necessarily the truth.

And all of that essentially admits that the next two years are forfeit anyway.

They're basically saying you can't use Mozilla VPN to get around state age restrictions for access to adult content.

Gives them an out to claim it's already not permitted on their platform and that they're not enabling crime in these states.

Previously discussed 1d ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43166249

In fairness, it's an insightful comment. The behavior of plenty of agencies is likely to be erratic or at the very least novel in the current climate.

> False. Money on your bank account is backed by bank's assets, not by the central regulator. Recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking , M1 money supply, etc.

You didn't even finish reading the first paragraph.

> Bank reserves are held as cash in the bank or as balances in the bank's account at the central bank

The collapse of svb shows how much the central regulator cares about making sure the entire banking system doesn't fall apart, too.

With the way you remarked "false" at the OP, though, I don't expect you're here for an engaging and educational discussion, so I'll leave it here. lol