erentz

The shareholders got what they wanted with Intel. If it was the wrong decision for Intel doesn’t mean it’s the wrong decision for everyone and should be banned.

The idea that the stock market can only be used to flow shares in one direction has no merit. If you want to regulate executive compensation do that with direct clear regulation on executive compensation, not via some indirect rule change on the stock market.

Companies should buy back their stock if their stock is undervalued.

This anti stock buyback meme is silly. It’s like people who are anti shorting stock. Companies list on the stock exchange in order to sell their own stock to raise capital. If they have excess capital, absolutely they should be able to buy back their stock. And buy other companies stock if they see it as undervalued also.

I don’t understand how Mozilla hasn’t built up a sufficient endowment at this stage to just continue indefinitely paying good developers to build the best open browser they can. Its mission should be pretty straightforward and boring.

Anecdotally. Folks I know at MSFT seem to just be a lot more stressed and working a lot harder to make up for less staff, rather than seeing any magical gains from the AI being forced down their throats.

Google AI the other day told me that tinnitus is listed as a potential adverse reaction of Saphnelo.

Only it damn well isn’t. Anywhere. Not even patient reports.

The problem with AI is if it’s right 90% of the time but I have to do all the work anyway to make sure it’s not one of the 10% of times it’s extremely confidently wrong, what use is it to me?

I really think too many people inside America do not properly understand how much the world now thinks it’s at risk from the US. The world sees what has happened as us turning into an autocracy that is now adversarial to democratic countries.

Words are actions in politics. They aren’t jokes or memes. We are threatening our neighbors. And for actions we have flipped on Ukraine and now withdrawn all aid, including intelligence, and just reported turned off their ability to target with GMLRS. We have even turned off our cybersecurity activities as it relates to Russia. Writing is very clear to people outside the US.

Surrendering is not known to be a good negotiating position.

They were building into a good position with russia very depleted and economically on the ropes. Despite hold ups in US aid over the Biden admin. Pressing more aid and strengthening their position would be better for negotiating a peace. But quite simply Trump/Vance/Musk don’t want that.

Not sure why everyone pointing this out is being downvoted. But we reduced revenue (taxes) while keeping spending the same. So debt goes up.

On top of that some emergency situations have also contributed (GFC, COVID) and then and in the Iraq war.

Right now they’re proposing a budget that will reduce taxes again, and increase our debt by over $4 trillion.

Edit: seriously everyone here knows math, this is math, it is public data, why is it treated this way. Argue the substance of cutting programs, but you can’t argue that deciding to raise less tax revenue than you spend increases the debt!

So I just found this a few pages down at rank 129, where its ended up in only 3 hours, despite garnering 250 points in that time. That's abnormal for such a popular post. What gives?

Benn Jordan did a good video that covered the bots and bias on X recently. Don't know if it or the papers were submitted here before (anyone feel free to submit it not):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5XN_mJE8Y

For me there is the distinction between regular politics and politics that is influenced or touched by technology and its leaders.

Regular politics can be discussed elsewhere, that makes sense.

But stories involving technology in the government should have a place here, even when the people involved are the likes of Elon Musk.

And stories involving tech leaders acting in our government should have a place for discussion here too. But of course what’s happening is deeply destructive and unpopular, so some people who support that agenda want to keep it quiet.

Frankly people will hate us forever after this.

I found it interesting because it was made two months ago. I think a lot of people who would’ve watched it two months ago wouldn’t believe it. And yet the past two weeks and flipped it from a “conspiracy pin board” to, actually they really are serious about this stuff.

I have noticed anything related to Elon Musk, DOGE, and Trump is flagged or very quickly I check back and it has somehow wound up several pages downranked no matter how recent or how many upvotes it was getting.

Even articles that are tech in nature like the access to Treasury payments or the stories about the people working for him.

I’ve seen the HN mod go out of his way to unflag actual conspiracy theories and yet here we are where real significant news can’t be discussed because of the people involved.

Looking this up, is this [1] the bill? Cuz it turns out this bill was sponsored by a Republican and passed during a Republican controlled House in 2023, by a supermajority 352 - 65.

People always blame Democrats for things that Republicans do.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...

First, people say things like they can't not use Facebook because it has marketplace, etc. shows there has clearly been an issue of not enforcing any kind of anti-trust laws for the past 20 years since US v Microsoft in the browser wars days.

The FTC over the past four years has taken a turn here and is starting to do that work again, it's slow but it needs to continue.

Second, these companies behave as publishers without any of the responsibilities/liability. This has to stop. If you publish just a chronological feed that's one thing. But when you algorithmically decide what people see when, and now introduce your own AI bots into the mix, you're 100% a publisher and need to be legally responsible for it. That legislation needs to be updated to reflect this.

Third, much of the root issues stem from advertising. These companies are driven to get and keep as much of your attention as possible simply so they can sell that attention to advertisers. If we all paid for it, the design of these services would be different. I'm not sure how to tackle that but it seems a start is privacy legislation to prohibit user tracking and sale or sharing of personal data.

What are they saying then? I am interpreting them in the context of this discussion which is on Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel and Israel’s response.

You seem to imply they are pointing to internal matters to Israel, not Hezbollahs aims. In which case it’s a total non sequitur comment. Or are you or they, suggesting Hezbollahs aims (given Hezbollah is what we are discussing) simply to reform internal issues within Israel and that is their reason for launching 10,000 rockets at them? I think you know that’s not the case.

The parent is suggesting a single state solution and giving this is the context of Hezbollah, the right of return. (Hezbollah is not in Palestine.)

Nobody on this planet would make that deal with groups who have the goal of destroying your country. If Hamas had been a peaceful group, democracy had taken hold in Gaza, it had existed peacefully with Israel, had never had the aim of destroying Israel, then yeah, you might be able to imagine a future where the two merge and live harmoniously. But that is not reality today.

Israel is simply not going to decide to cease to exist. People living in Israel are not going to up and leave. They’re not going to say “sure take my house” any more than you would. This kind of thing is entirely magical thinking that can only happen because you aren’t able to generate any kind of empathy for people living in Israel.

Kids born in the West Bank or Gaza today are not helped to have a better future by this kind of thinking you’re pushing here.

Which came first in your mind? Are you trying to go back to 1948 here? I mean why stop there we could say this is all stems from the assassination of Franz Ferdinand leading to the invasion of and break up of the Ottomon empire. But we have to live in the reality we have today.

In this reality Hezbollah started attacking Israel after Oct 7 in support of Hamas’s attack on Israel. But for that happening Israel would not be invading southern Lebanon to try and put and end to these attacks now.

There is nothing at all wrong with criticizing Israel, I am deeply annoyed with a lot they do, the right wing element and the West Bank settlers are really ruining the ability to reach a two state solution. (Palestinian leaders also share blame in not reaching this outcome too sadly.)

The problem is that people so often have double standards and expectations of Israelis they would never apply to anyone else. And they definitely never seem to have similar expectations for Hezbollah or Hamas. This isn’t constructive and gets kind of antisemitic after a while (Jews are different, hence unrealistic expectations, they should just take the rocket fire and never respond). It’s a weird lack of empathizing with Israelis as also being real humans behaving as real humans anywhere would. This really doesn’t help bring about any kind of peace.

Hezbollah has launched over 10,000 rockets at Israel since Oct 7 last year. While under the watch of the UN. But apparently Israel is supposed to just do nothing about it and accept it going on for as long as Hezbollah likes. Absolutely no other country on this planet would. So many people seem to have a special set of double standards they apply to Israel for some reason.

That would be a nightmare to implement well and stifle innovation.

Just put a proper cost on CO2 emissions, water usage, and land. That will naturally drive people to utilize those resources more efficiently.

Nuclear waste is tiny. It’s been stored onsite safely for half a century and never killed anyone. Why fix what ain’t broke.

Something can’t be used 60 years over usable life. Think about it.

What happened is that nuclear plants were given 40 year licenses in the US. After 40 years they applied for extensions. They were studied and it was found they had a lot more life in them. So extensions were granted. Why prematurely turn off a great carbon free generating asset that’s already been paid for. (That’d be peak German brain.)

> A huge portion of Democratic voters wanted the candidate replaced

Those democrats should’ve joined the party, found a good candidate and done the job of fielding them. But they didn’t, because they just like to complain not do the actual work. We had primaries. Fact is simply that none of the fantasy candidates that people like to name in wonky circles actually wanted to run.

It’s more like 10x worse than 9/11. Israel is a fairly small country of 9m people. So much of the population was connected to those killed. If you scale it to the US it would be as if 41,000 Americans were killed. Our response would be off the charts in such an event.

Just note, since this is commonly elided by Unusual Whales et al: For anyone thinking they want to copy-trade members of congress because you believe they have an information advantage, be aware that information advantage is long gone by the time you see them report their trades (45 days later).

I think your down votes are because people are tired of rebutting the same old anti-nuclear arguments.

"Civilizationally" The evidence is nuclear has remained safer than alternatives well over half a century even when we have failed organizationally to do the right things (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima). IMO let us move on and use technologies that might prevent civilizational collapse rather than avoid them and make such a thing more likely. (Although it's unlikely under any scenario.)

"Proliferation" as a product of civilian nuclear power has been studied and discussed for its entire history and has been disproven. There's no link. In general having civilian nuclear power allows more oversight by international bodies about what you're doing, whereas regimes pursuing nuclear weapons tend to pursue them in secret and using infrastructure fit for the purpose of producing weapons materials.

"Fuel efficiency" simply isn't important when the fuel is so abundant and so cheap. We can afford to worry about that in future if we ever wind up building enough nuclear power it becomes a problem. If anything this is a good reason to stop freaking out about "nuclear waste" i.e. mildly used and 95% reusable fuel and leave that where it's been sitting perfectly safe for decades, above ground.

If someone had the time they could mine every nuclear thread on Hacker News and pull out all the common tropes and rebut them someplace in a similar vein to Skeptical Science's list for Climate Change (https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php). @acidburnNSA's https://whatisnuclear.com/ might be the closest thing. But then nobody would read it, and the problem would continue.

Don’t skip some and introduce your bias.

1 China 2 Russia 3 South Korea 4 Somalia 5 Yemen 6 Taiwan 7 Ukraine 8 Eritrean 9 Egypt 10 Lybia

Buffet also said, "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate.” … “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."

This map makes it seems hysterical to me that people think it's being done as espionage and is a national security issue. The land is wide open and easily observed. In any actual conflict anyone operating in that area could easily be shut down. And just look at the map, it's an awful lot of land to just "spy" on a military base, a lot of the land is as far as 20-30 km away.

This land is all filling out a very good area for wind power generation, so I'm guessing they have plans for a lot of wind farms.

EDIT: If you go to https://globalwindatlas.info/en you'll have no trouble finding the area on a view of CA. It's one of the bright red areas between SAC and OAK and this land conveniently fills most of it.

This depends on your circumstance and its important to be a bit more cautious if you received a large lump sum (e.g. from a disability settlement) that you expect to need or live off.

Yes the average person randomly assigned a lump sum on a random day will do much better if they deploy it immediately. But the tail person who gets the bad roll of the dice and receives it on a bad day will do much worse and may not have the money they needed to rely on.

You're not the average person, you're just one person from the population, and you don't know if you'll be the one with the bad roll of the dice or not. That's why people DCA.

If receiving a large lump sum like this you need to live off, either DCA over 12-24 months, or make sure you have some really good tactical allocation system that moves you to safety in the first few years.