nickff

"Minor embarrassment" is what politicians who 'take full responsibility' while not facing any consequences 'suffer'.[1] Getting canned for it is a bit more than that.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-19958739

If Wickard v Filburn is still good law, I don’t understand how the betting market is anything but interstate commerce. Futures trading is betting, especially where they’re settled in cash.

Here is a link to a post about the State of New York's case: https://www.shb.com/intelligence/newsletters/securities-liti...

I am not sure about how the state regulation of betting will turn out (though I would have guessed that it is indeed pre-empted), but the nationwide injunction seems shaky given Trump v Casa: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

The 'small-scale' 100k-1MM per participant per day per casino laundering can add up to 'real money' quite fast.

The larger-scale money laundering in my area is a but more complicated, involving import/export schemes, real estate transactions, and property developments. I'm not in a mega-city, so I assume these schemes are taking place at a larger scale in those. I have only ever heard of very basic and stupid schemes (which didn't provide any tax revenue to my goverment) being detected or prosecuted.

Criminals don't have to "recruit and pay huge numbers of naive bank customers"; in my jurisdiction, they just walk into a casino with a few hundred thousand dollars, exchange for chips, pretend to gamble for an hour, then exchange the chips for cash, and walk out with a nice receipt. There're more complex schemes involving real estate and other mediums too.

Having the ability to identify who is watching or saying what on the internet would be immensely useful to the government; the justifications are really meaningless.

Anti-money-laundering is a comparable field, as all the AML regulations and laws are ineffective at identifying money launderers, but they're wonderful for verifying (auditing and prosecuting) tax compliance.

>"It could be 99% filler and not be a lie."

There is no evidence that McDonalds has included any filler in their burgers at all (at least in recent history). See the link in the cousin-comment for more information on what has been claimed and what has been proven (so far): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943

To be fair to its adherents (of which I am not one), the so-called philosophy espouses maximizing income, so that one can later allocate that wealth efficiently. Working in a low-earning field which directly provides aid to those in need would seem to violate a core precept of 'Effective Altruism'.

"100% beef" is a factual claim, and not subject to Trademarks; McDonalds Trademarked "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" in 1982.

https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352...

What do you mean by this? The two ideas/groups/perspectives seem completely unrelated.

I’m not saying that the lawsuits are necessarily wrong or bad (though there do seem to be many of dubious merit), just that they don’t accurately reflect the mix of safety and other problems between large and small producers.

The measures related to lawsuits are misleading and terrible, because of the way class-action lawsuits have incentivized lawyers to pursue dubious cases against large companies.

The US's problem seems to be that citizens demand a very high level of (costly) medical care, which would not be sustainable if implemented as a taxpayer-funded universal program. As an example, the numbers which I've seen indicate that the USA has about 10x as many MRI machines per capita than Canada (which is generally a comparable country). The other big problem is the way that Medicaid is implemented, with funding and accountability divided between the Federal Government (which doesn't have the constitutional authority to run healthcare), and the States (which do); this is rather similar to Canada, which also has major issues caused by this division.

I believe that it was changed after the comment you have replied to was posted.

Deep-sea mining has been studied and foreseen for at least 50 years, but it's never been economical. It is possible that current technology will allow for mining of nodules, but this still seems unlikely to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining#History

You are describing the justification that NVDA is using to explain their behavior; they see it as something of a 'bridge-loan' until the LLM business model reaches steady-state. The problem is that this explanation has been used for many bubbles, where companies mis-categorize ongoing costs as one-time expenses.

The problem is that when a vendor finances their customers, they can create the illusion of 'real' demand for their product, when most of the the end-users are only actually using something because it's cheap. When the vendor runs low on cash and starts requiring payment, the customer may not be able to afford it, taking both vendor and customer down, and leaving the end-users who have a real need, and were willing to pay sustainable prices without any options.

BRK has been roughly flat since the beginning of 2025; you might be better off in bonds or money markets (depending on your beliefs about near-term inflation).

If people really cared, they’d choose browsers that have better control, but that’s obviously not a priority for them. Why do you think this sort of thing should be regulated to suit your preferences when most people don’t seem to agree with you?

I believe myself to be fairly well-informed, and usually accept the cookies, because I don’t foresee any potential harms, and it helps the people running the website. I am worried about many things like phishing and hacking/data leaks, but the valuable data isn’t cookie-related.

What harm are you worried about?

The manufacturers are willing to put in whatever seats the operators want, and airlines want to have the lightest, most compact seats possible because that allows them to offer the lowest price, which is what passengers choose.

What exactly do you mean by "10x doctor"?

Some surgeons have a 10x higher 'revision rate' than others, and from what I understand, that may be an understatement. Many of the statistics which would indicate the ones to avoid are not tracked, precisely because the doctors do not want them tracked.

Quite reminiscent of Enron, though obviously not the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room_...

There are many science fiction stories about amoral humans, cyborgs, and AIs. Paperclip maximization is a relatively recent meme, but the 'gray goo scenario' has been widely written about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo

There's a wide spectrum of 'private credit', and it varies from low-risk to quite high risk, depending on the debtor. In the case of "AI Companies", their debt is low-risk, but many are creating special-purpose-entities which will build and own some or all of their newer datacenters. Those datacenter companies are issuing a great deal of somewhat risky debt; with the exact level of risk depending on the off-take agreement.

Is this comment pure speculation, or do you have knowledge (or anecdotal evidence) of a similar exploit being sold for $500k?

SPCX is valued as an AI company; any and all issues you have with AI company valuations apply to to SPCX.

I too agree that SPCX’s space business is real and valuable, but it’s (almost completely) irrelevant here.

You can be that factor! Short sell the stock, and use the money to invest in a more-accurately valued business.

This may be a controversial view, but I don't think we should trust the actor in charge of regulating and limiting emissions with its own supervision. The Federal Government has a plethora of agencies which regulate pollution and energy usage; how can we trust either its legislative or executive branch to ensure that their creations are effective or efficient?

To that end, I hope the Trump administration's actions cause independent data collection and analysis by activists and independent scientists.

It seems that making government union members accountable is an intractable problem in the current political landscape.