elmerfud

Wow, CNBC thinks being a shill for corporations that have pushed the throwaway economic model on us is news worthy. Just wait, in their next article they'll talk about the environmental damage of all the throw away electronics.

There is no loss of innovation by having reliable things than can last several years. What is actually criminal is selling a device that should last for 5 years but allowing it to become insecure the day it's released with no updates or fixes even within their warranty period.

Reading through the article it was interesting until I got to the point where they said corporations have built these as investment markets. That seems to imply some intent that they built this as a way for players to have and hold and grow investments. If that was really the case it wouldn't be governed by a private terms of service.

I think they practical aspect is some of these markets have been used by players as investment markets. The tooling to trade items has allowed players to act like it's an investment market but I think it's a big stretch to say it was built with the intent by the corporations for it to be an investment market.

Any player who actually believed it was an investment market has to be the biggest fool there ever was. At least with an NFT you have an NFT something that declares your ownership of said thing that can actually be traded. A Counter-Strike 2 item while maybe it can be traded could also just up and vanish without any NFT style things saying it's yours.

Also the title appears to be misleading because it doesn't seem like they just vanished people's items or took them away or use their terms of service to just wipe it off the face of the planet. They simply provided new things to the marketplace itself. This is always a risk in any marketplace.

A fool in their money will soon be parted. Seems more like gambling than an investment. Nothing wrong with gambling as long as you're gambling with your excess and not betting your whole future on it. Because people who have gambled their entire future on something is foolish as this don't deserve to be bailed out. High risk assets are part of any diverse investment portfolio, I wouldn't consider this an asset worthy of an investment portfolio, but if someone put 2-5% of their investments into something risky like this I also wouldn't be hard on them either. Take the chance maybe you win big and if you lose it's not really going to impact your future.

Seems like there has been a basic education problem on what proper investments are.

This should be on the list, not just other

Maybe maybe not but people have always predicted the demise of Bitcoin, eventually someone will be right, but just because someone guessed right didn't make them some sort of prognosticator.

Considering that the markets have been taking a massive beating across the board the reason for bitcoins recent drop isn't quantum.

Regulations follow the money and it's infective. So even in what could seem to be unrelated things depending on the funding or the partnerships or the relationships of those companies they may be under the same compliance burdens. The embargo lists are insanely bizarre.

I can't answer specifically for their reasons but the general reason for things like this is regulations and compliance. There is a whole pile of compliance and regulations depending on your company and industry and funding and all kinds of nonsense you have to go through when engaging with companies outside of the US or employing people outside of the US. Some industries and companies never have to worry about it but others they might have to worry about it and some definitely have to worry about it. So it is oftentimes easier to just lump everyone together and say you must be in the US or you must be a US citizen. Then the compliance regulations can get a lot easier.

I suspect a lot of it comes down to how they phrased the question. At this point I think a lot of people have given up on the idea of ownership of their own data, including in the EU. So when you've mentally prepared yourself in a way that you already don't own this thing the value on it goes down quite a bit.

If you were to preface the question with a proposition such as; companies are only allowed to request the minimum amount of personal information in order to business and they are only allowed to retain that online for the minimum amount of time required. Companies that request more than the minimum required or retain it online longer than the minimum required face a 100,000 Euro fine per incident paid to the person whose personal data was violated.

Given this, you could optionally opt to sell your personal data so companies could freely use it and retain it until you opt out. What is the monthly price that you would sell your personal data for so companies could use it anytime they want without request?

I suspect you would get a completely different answer. Where people would now value their data very highly because how the scenario is framed. When you frame a scenario as if your personal data has no value you basically set the market for people in their mind.

I don't think anyone actually read the law including the Forbes article. Apparently my previous comment no one seems to understand even the most perfunctory things about the law.

There is no general prohibition about using the seal of the United States. It is only violating these provisions when you use it in a way where a reasonable person would believe it is being endorsed by the United States government.

Clearly based upon the insanity in these comments no one believes that these things are actually endorsed by the government they're just upset at Trump and they're upset at the usage of the seal. Not liking it doesn't violate the law you actually believing that these things are somehow part of the federal government would. As you all represent reasonable people and clearly don't believe this including the author of this article it's just this vague threat that it could violate the law.

If you want it to violate the law you're going to have to be a lot dumber than you actually are or find a bunch of dumber people. Then you would have a case where you could show that these reasonably dumb people believe these are things from our federal government.

Your feelings about something aren't what matters. Try and set them aside.

You snip out the important bits. It's not that no one can use the great seal It's that if it's used in such a way where a reasonable person wouldn't believe whatever the item is is actually represented to be by the federal government.

If the reasonable person would not consider it to be something by the federal government then you are totally allowed to use it. It is one of the consequences of free speech and having a public government. Because this doesn't fall under normal trademark law or even a normal copyright.

So it very much becomes a question for the courts to answer. People's political bias doesn't factor into it. The courts measurement of a reasonable person standard is what does.

Does a beer pong set reasonably convey that this is by the US government?

I like it but I have a few suggestions.

Instead of the percentage of income at retirement offer the option of a monthly value. The percentage makes sense if you're planning on remaining in the same locality and attempting to stay at your same lifestyle level. A monthly value makes more sense if your plan is to move to an area with a significantly different cost of living and/or significantly change your current lifestyle.

The other suggestion would be around social security, investment accounts other retirement income and the age in which these apply. It appears that it starts factoring in at the age you specify retiring at. It would be more accurate to factor that in starting at a specific age. For example if I had stocks and a 401k and social security. These all have different points in which you should take out of them for the best benefit. If I wanted to retire at 55 I need to know how long my stock portfolio could maintain my lifestyle and then at 59 and a half I can begin to factor in my 401k. Then depending on my age and what kind of social security benefit level I want I would factor it in at that time.

This would provide the best visualization to see exactly how things will pan out.

I think everyone knows that most people hate AI but a lot of people use it because they feel they don't have a choice.

My problem with AI is that it could be such a valuable tool but every implementation, besides trying to run your own in your own basement, seems like it is geared toward kindergartners. The kind of censored nonsense it spouts off or just blatantly trying to prevent you from getting any good information out of it blows my mind. People talk about AI hate but if you dealt with another person that responds to you like AI does you would genuinely start to hate that other person.

I was asking it some simple questions about understanding some open source software. It starts squawking back to me about security and stability of software and so it doesn't want to answer me on modifying this. So I literally have to argue with it about the entire concept of open source to get it to give me an answer. When it did give me an answer it was incredibly vague. So I went and dug into the software myself and then responded back to it that the answer I was seeking was incredibly simple and the software was already geared to be modified in the way that I wanted. Then it responded of course it is and it gives me an example for how I want to modify it.

This is why people hate AI. Because it is utter nonsense until you go and do all of the legwork and then it will just agree with you. Nobody wants that kind of sycophant in their life. I want it to be an assistant that will assist me in what I'm doing. At this point AI is less helpful than a junior worker that is moderately resourceful and it takes more of my time to deal with it.

Everyone hates AI because of this nonsense and until these companies start letting it act like someone who can hold advanced conversations as if they were university level people we will continue to hate AI. It's like it's there to intentionally make people stupid instead of assisting them in being something better.

That nebulous label is creep has been dismissed by any reasonable person. Because the same words spoken by two different people and it's creepy in one case and not in the other all through the subjective lens of the receiver. Something that is impossible to know in advance.

So if you have actual evidence of inappropriate things that have been said, especially after someone has indicated it's unwelcome, please share that for everyone to see. Otherwise you're just spouting nonsense with nothing to back it up except arbitrary feelings.

Sorry you didn't want to be approached by Richard Stallman but even people who look like Richard Stallman are allowed to shoot their shot without being called a creep.

Just because it applied 2500 years ago it doesn't make it not true. I think there's some fallacy that people can cite that this happens most generations and then indicate that it must not be a true thing.

What's closer to the truth is that each generation hopes to make life easier for the subsequent generations. The effect of that is all of the things that we complain about. More than one thing can be true at the same time. As things get easier people get lazier. It is only a natural thing. That can be demonstrated over and over in society. That can be demonstrated over the generations. So what was true 2,500 years ago still is true today.

So they dismiss older generations complaining about younger generations but then they give the woe is me older generations never had it as hard as we younger ones.

Younger generations have always had an easier time at literally everything. The complaint about AI culling resumes discounts the fact that it used to be a human that would just throw them away. At least with the AI you have a chance of saying the right thing to get past that level. Depending on the job you're going for that might be the first test to show if you're capable of doing the job.

It's kind of like when employers put on time trackers on your workstation or other such things too ensure you're staying busy and productive. I honestly don't believe that it is actually about tracking whether employees are busy because any employee you would want to work for you would know how to bypass that or make it seem like you're productive when you're not. Those who are not intelligent enough to do that aren't worth keeping around.

There is some truth to both sides of this. Older generations are more critical of younger generations but younger generations also have more advantages and tend to not work as hard.

One of the biggest problems that I've seen with younger people is that they immediately default to asking someone else instead of bothering to do any perfunctory level of research themselves. It's like they're trained to only phone a friend and never learn and research for themselves. Because when they have to learn and research for themselves it's hard and they give up and they complain that it's too hard. Then of course I'm considered passive aggressive when I copy and paste the link to the documentation that answers their question.

They grew up in a world where they did not have to value anyone's time. They had instant access to anyone through some sort of messaging system so they never had to learn to be self-sufficient or at least attempt to be self-sufficient before they go and engage someone else. That propagates everywhere. That basic attitude says things like finding a job is hard without realizing it's probably easier if you just put in the effort to learn what the AI was looking for.

Of course it also demonstrates the power of misuse something like this has. Because only the ignorant think that secret databases in the hands of government will never be misused.

If we want to build a database of DNA tied to individuals that should be public record. If we cannot trust the public with having this information then we absolutely should not trust the government.

I hope what I'm about to say doesn't actually come true but I do fear over the last couple of decades that we are being set up for it. In the past, and unless developed countries, elder care has been around quantity of life and not always quality of life. There has been a steady cultural shift, and first world countries, around people's focus to be about quality of life and not quantity.

I do believe that there will be a cultural shift in the next decade or two that quality of life will be the primary driver and not quantity. This has started with, what I consider a number of good things, such as living wills. I don't think those are bad to make your wishes known on what should be done in the event of an emergency where you're not capable of expressing it. I do expect this will move forward onto other things. What to do when you've had a stroke and you're cognitively impaired. Then what to do when you're just tired of living.

I am a strong believer in people's independence and free choice. Even if that free choice is them wanting to unalive themselves. That's another interesting term that's become popular as of late, unalive instead of suicide. I also think that suicide shouldn't be something people do and it definitely shouldn't be something that a culture accepts as a whole even if it is liberal enough to allow the freedom of people to choose it. Because when a culture accepts that it devalues life overall. Caring for your elders in a society teaches compassion to the younger generations. It teaches that they have to sacrifice and be compassionate to those who are the weakest among them. Just because choices are available it doesn't mean that those are choices that should be done.

I hope this doesn't come to pass but I really believe that it is a strong possibility that it could. Especially as younger generations are taught to be more selfish and self-centered, parents feel like they want to be less of a burden to their children, it sets things up where this is a very real possibility. There's always the fear of the government death panels and so forth, I don't believe that would pass broad societal approval, but I do believe that a cultural shift where this is voluntary is a very real possibility.

The man does know how to troll people, and this is sure to make people freak out. The real question is what is this trolling designed to distract from?

You clearly didn't seem to read anything that I wrote, especially the point about where the constitutional power to make money and set the value comes from. Nor does it seem you understand anything about the Constitution itself. Because you cannot talk about respecting the power of small government and local governments while simultaneously ignoring the document that says any powers that aren't specifically listed here are granted back to the States.

So let me say this again, and maybe you can go look it up yourself, the Constitution gives the power to make money and set the value to Congress. Congress gave that power over to the president. There was a time early in the history where states and localities thought that they had the power to make money and it was a big confusing mess. Which is why the power was directly written in to the Constitution that the money is a federally governed thing.

So any state or locality that is trying to pass some law or ordinance overriding the making or setting the value of money is automatically wrong. You have representation the power is within Congress every two years you get to reelect around 60 to 70% of Congress. So stop complaining on hacker News and start paying attention to the congressional elections.

What Trump says is not wrong, and because some local municipality has passed ignorant laws is not a reason to keep the penny around or to delay it's removal. Move fast break things I believe is the motto. But for being hacker news there seems to be a lot of stodgy people here when it comes to anything good that Trump wants to do. I suggest you go see what CPG Gray says about it to understand the real problem, which is the problem across lots of government.

Congress has the sole constitutional power to make money and set its value. What Congress did with this power was to abdicate it to the executive branch to determine the amounts thereof of the monies in circulation. So while you might want to scream "orange man is bad" which I do agree there has been several bad decisions, this one is because the absolute failure of Congress to do the job that it was empowered to do by the Constitution.

So put the blame we're blame exists. You get to re-elect a massive portion of those congressmen every two years. So you don't have to wait for the "bad orange man" to leave office. Most of what people cry about that Trump is doing is actually because all they seem to focus on is the president and never about the Congress which has abdicated its power in many places to the executive branch. Because Congress seems to have its sole focus on getting reelected and not actually managing the portions of government that they were empowered to do by the Constitution.

Anyone who shows up and their only contribution is to push AWS services because that's what they know, the first question I asked them is if they are capable of doing it themselves on-prem. Their answer is no or they don't know how to or some babbling on about it's more expensive and ROI and things like that I dismiss them immediately. Because those may all be true things but without the ability to do it yourself it is impossible to make an accurate assessment if AWS or another cloud service is actually a good fit for what you're doing.

It does give them the means, the problem is it gave them too much. Gen Z claims they can't afford anything but they're walking around with cellphones that are far in excess of what any financially responsible person would consider appropriate for their income. Sucking down $6 foofoo drinks and $20 lunches and then getting their dinner delivered!!! My God, this doesn't even scratch the surface on now financially irresponsible they are.

They were given a society of dreams and desires but failed to be taught to control themselves or to be responsible. So yes elders do deserve the blame, it's their fault for giving too much and teaching too little. A world full of wonders and amazements and temptations and a generation that has zero self-control. But as far as the society that doesn't allow them the means to support themselves, that is a complete and utter garbage argument in every way shape and form.

You are factually incorrect. Documented means that they are legally allowed to be in the country which is why they have received work permits and that they have received social security numbers. They have a legal status which is why they are documented as being here. To say that they dealt in all cash is a factual lie. Where are you getting your data. I'm getting my data first hand from someone who was picked up and also had first hand accounts of hundreds of people in detention. All with work permits all with social security cards all who had legal jobs at the time of their detention. All of them were engaging in the normal commerce of a USA citizen which is to have a debt load and a credit rating. Do you think they had cash to pay for those vehicles? Do you think they had cash to pay for those houses? Do you think apartments don't run credit ratings? You are absolutely foolish to think that this is some massive 30 million people with a cash based underground. Modern banking doesn't work that way, almost no jobs pay that way. No jobs that you're going to get with a work permit and a social security card which is the vast majority of jobs. You think these people just pick your lettuce in the field. That's absolutely insane you really need to educate yourself because you have believed the lies that were told.

The law does not consider them illegal aliens. ICE does not classify them as illegal aliens. Only red-headed political ideologues that are looking for a boogeyman consider them illegal aliens.

You can say that it is a miniscule number of them having credit and debt but you need some evidence to back up your claims. Increasing housing supply at the cost of a greater burden for everyone else isn't a good way to do it. Because these were functioning taxpayer members of society. Then they became burdens to society because they were housed in detention facilities at an extraordinary cost along with the money lost for the proper eviction procedures and debt recovery procedures and everything else.

It is absolutely foolish to take people who were following the legal process and we're legally documented as being here putting them into tension centers causing them to default on their mortgages or their leases. Causing them to default on their car loans and their credit card debt. For you to act like it's a good thing is absolutely insane.

Because you believed the lies that these were illegal criminals that weren't allowed to be here. Go and read the lies of the news media. That's how it was presented. It only takes a small bit of logic to say if they were actually criminals that were not allowed to be here then they wouldn't know where they are. Because there would be no documentation. The fact that they could go get them so quickly was because they were allowed to be here and they were arbitrarily revoking parole statuses and other statuses of people that were granted permission to be here following the processes laid out in the law.

Now you will bear the financial burden for it. Because fools like you think that they were criminal illegal aliens. When they were not they were legal aliens. I highly suggest you go and review the actual many immigration statuses that are granted. Because there are many statuses where you are legally allowed to be in this country as an alien without being granted a visa. Once you have reviewed those I will await your apology.

One thing the article doesn't mention is deportees. The administration always says illegal immigrants but when you look the vast majority that are being deported are documented people here under some allowed process, they just haven't been granted a green card yet. Documented immigrants have work permits, social security cards, all the thing to find housing, get jobs, engage in banking etc...

When they're picked up and going to be deported, do you think they're going to care about their car loan, home mortgage or credit card debt? Not even a little bit. I had a friend here awaiting asylum for 7 years. She was picked up by ICE, sat for 3 months in detention, finally just agreed to leave because that's was long enough to be evicted by her apartment (and get significant fees for it) be defaulted on her credit cards, and on her car loan.

Who pays for all that debt, in excess of $20,000 for everything. She never will, she goes to another country, finds a decent paying job because she has years of experience in the US and now speaks English. All very valuable skills to a lot of employers in central and south America.

Expect to see a lot more loans being defaulted on. We were lied to about the number of illegals. Now we're going to see the effect of deporting people who were working, participating in the economy, and happy to be here. All because the lies saying they were illegal.

You're forgetting that table saws were invented thousands of years after hand saws. Master Craftsman used hand saws to do all of the things that are done with table saws. Many things are much easier on a table saw and much faster to do than with a hand saw. They are absolutely a replacement for hand saws that fulfill a niche. I suspect you haven't done a lot of actual woodworking for you to make this statement like this.

Just because we use table saws to rip lumber or massive table saws to cut up trees into lumber doesn't mean that no one could have created lumber prior to the invention of the table saw. We just factually know that's not true. Faster, easier, better, absolutely but all of it could be done and was done with hand saws. Maybe you're thinking the hand saw is limited to this simple hand saw that we have now or a simple Japanese hand saw and not the actual large hand saws that took two people to operate but are still hand saws that come with all of the dangers of the hand saw.

But table saws are a replacement for manual saws. Table saws weren't invented first. Table saws fulfilled a niche use case for sawing. So by that saw stop is a replacement for a manual saw.

If you've ever used a hammer, a tool that has been around for tens of thousands of years, you will know by it's very nature of its operation it is a danger to thumbs. Trying to think that you can do "on an iPhone" and start with the assumption that a hammer fulfilling the functions and utility that it has and has had for 10,000 years cannot be a danger to thumbs is an erroneous thought and it shows the height of hubris.

Can you have tools that fulfill some of the functions of the hammer that are not dangerous to thumbs? Absolutely and we have those already. Any of the automatic nailers have built-in safety features to prevent accidents. Sometimes people disable those safety features because they do cause problems in legitimate use cases but they are built with those safety features. This would be analogous to saw stop which works in table saws which is a very limited saw.

Just like a table saw cannot fulfill all of the functions of a hand saw. A device that pounds nails or other things that has features to prevent it from accidentally hitting thumbs would not be able to fulfill all of the functions of the hammer.

From what we've seen with saws, this is your example not mine, all of the electric saws that have ever been built have never been able to eliminate the usefulness or utility of the simple handsaw which is dangerous to use. So where is the hubris to say that because you can invent a safer nailing device, which they have, it will somehow supplant and replace the hammer? The evidence says that's not the case.

What's sad is that this is just a general youth culture thing when they think no one is listening. I don't know how genuine they are in their beliefs but I have discord chats with transgender liberals that cheered the death of Charlie Kirk that regularly would go on racist rants and encouraged rape as well.

When I would mention to them that I was uncomfortable with this kind of chatting because I have friends of all races and I have known people who have been raped. So making these kind of jokes, even if it's just to be edgy, isn't funny and doesn't feel edgy. What it really shows is a bunch of people who've never experienced racism and have never experienced the torture and pain of rape themselves or having one of their close friends experience it. So they joke about these vile things.

Is that a defense of the young Republicans doing this? No it's not. It's an explanation that should provoke people and to taking a deeper look and seeing that it's not limited to young Republicans but also to young Democrats as well. They use the same provocative language when they believe it's reasonably private because they're trying to be edgy in front of their friends. It's easier to think that it's only one side and to use this to dehumanize one side while ignoring that this is pervasive from all sides coming from the younger generations.

Everybody knows about saw stop. But in what way does a table saw compare with a hammer? If you were comparing it to an air nailer, or an electric nail gun, or an electric screw gun, which all can have safety features that require certain things to be met before it will fire then you have a comparison.

If you want to compare the hammer to something that saws you would compare it to a handsaw. Show me the hand saw that cannot damage your fingers.

You must think you're very smart but I don't think you've done any manual labor in your life. Because the table saw never obsoleted any other type of existing saw. It was simply a new tool that enhanced the ability to do certain types of sawing. The more you limit a function of something the easier it is to put guardrails around it. That was the original poster's point. You can limit Android to the point that it is nearly useless or useless only for the most basic of tasks but then you remove the power of it but you do not remove the need for all of the other tasks.

Table saws with saw stop still necessitate hand saws in some circumstances. Power nailers that have safety features that prevent their discharge and unsafe ways do not obsolete hammers.

It probably wouldn't be classified as a hammer anymore. You're comparing apples and oranges. Now when you show me the manual hand saw that can avoid cutting off your fingers you'll have an accurate comparison.

Because we're not comparing air nailers or electric nail guns or screw guns. It was about a hammer.

Your comparison is so ridiculous because the table saw did not obsolete any other kind of saw. It was only a new type of saw that allowed for some types of sawing to be done much easier.

I believe those hammers are made by Nerf. Now go build a house with one.