danorama

But what if Avery has the skills and training to watch 5 kids at once in a group?

I agree with you! But that’s not where we are, and this is a valid response to the Texas Leg trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters everywhere and Texas’s Democratic voters in particular. The Leg had months to undo this when they saw the possible response from CA. They chose to assume Democrats couldn’t fight back after the first blow. They were wrong.

Ah, the bridge jumping argument. What about if someone takes a slug at you when you’ve done nothing wrong? Or challenges your HN comment? You respond.

No, Texas has no such law, and that’s a shame. If Texas had, it might have prevented this situation. California is being repeatedly threatened by the Trump Republican government. The threat was exacerbated by the Texas Legislature (not the voters, of course). California voters would never have approved Prop 50 without them.

And what does the Texas Legislature believe about Texas’s Democratic voters? Do tell.

Just curious, did you have this reaction to what Texas did? Or is the problem here just that California responded in kind?

Jeebus. Remember when government agencies at least _acted_ like they represented everyone?

Putting this archive here in case someone develops a sense of shame: https://archive.is/G5Ej9

“The Democrats wouldn't take the Covid vaccine when it first came out and called it the 'Trump vaccine' on CNN...until they came into power. Then they made a 180.”

[citation needed]

Or, and hear me out: you could not fly down Fulton at 60mph. Just an idea.

I started looking at this site thinking it was some ambitious dystopian scifi ARG content. But after checking it out for a bit (and watching the insane intro video), it seems like it's just some really ambitious dystopianism.

My apologies if I misinterpreted, but this sentence:

"It's hard to legislate "you cannot collect any info about people ever", when people are free to choose to have an account with them."

Implied to me that you were saying that the information they were gathering was only coming from people who have an account with them. I don't have an account with them, and I'm pretty sure they're collecting all sorts of data on me (despite having every known Meta hostname in my /etc/hosts file pointing to 127.1).

But reading your sentence again, it looks like you were saying something a little different. It seems like I might have misunderstood your point at first glance. My apologies for the snark.

If you knew what they were, you wouldn't have used the phrase "when people are free to choose to have an account with them."

You might want to look up the term “shadow profiles” as it applies to Facebook.

By that argument the regulations shouldn’t cover anything? It would make a lot more products available to more people, after all. And maybe cheaper?

But without the CPSC that safety equipment might not be safe at all. And elimination what Amazon is arguing for.

It’s fair to question someone’s judgment based on their expressed opinions, and take that into account when evaluating what they say later on. Also, he may just have a different definition of “ideal” than some of us.

sorry, forgot the /s.

Fair enough. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

Given your comment history, trying to call out others on this rule is interesting. But we all can improve, I guess!

My sense is they're going to shred any requests like this or just send back a "No Responsive Records" response for every one and dare someone to try to call them on it. But I envy your trusting nature.

So if it's government as usual they won't mind adhering to the Privacy Act of 1974 like every other agency, right?

Flagged. We don't talk about privacy issues on Hacker News. Especially not when they involve the government.

If you don’t want it to be such a tribal issue, maybe stop with the “you guys (who, exactly?) don’t know anything” routine?

“Officials are also considering two other possible moves: banning the DeepSeek app from U.S. app stores and putting limits on how U.S.-based cloud service providers could offer DeepSeek’s AI models to their customers, people close to the matter said. They cautioned that discussions about these two moves were still at an early stage.”

Because they’re a meaningless proxy?

I don’t personally recall, but it’s kind of a silly idea to break down presidential votes by county anyway. At least counting states matters legally in elections. And counting people matters as a way to judge desires and sentiments.

Counting by counties combines the unrepresentativeness of the Electoral College with the legal irrelevance of the popular vote.

Where do you see an ordered, thoughtful, deliberate process taking place here? Is that source (or sources) believable, and non-partisan?

That’s a great question to ask. And if it were the question being asked by the new folks in charge that would be pretty great. Instead we’ve got drunk toddlers smashing valuable things with a baseball bat. I’m not sure that’s an improvement over the status quo.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that "inclusion" wasn't Trump's intent here.