Volundr

> Or the 50 million USD for condoms. As Elon said, that's a lot of condoms.

Right. Which is why you'd think he might realize that it doesn't make sense and maybe look again and realize it's not $50 million being spent on condoms [1]. He and Trump are supposed to be savy businessmen. If I can look at this, do some quick math based on the cost of a condom, and conclude that can't be right, surely these experienced business leaders should have at least as good instincts, right? So either they are lying intentionally or are not half as competent as they claim.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/12/politics/some-of-the-things-t...

> Yet people with experience know that Step 2 requires orders of magnitude more effort and time than Step 1.

And also that the steps here should be reversed. Sure if you are tearing down a building you destroy before creating, but systems aren't buildings. If you are going to create a new system to run the cash registers for your business you don't tear out the old one and worry about building the new one later. First you have the replacement ready THEN remove the old one.

I can't speak to any data that may or may not be compromised, but this isn't about inserting fake tweets. Anything in their "government org chart" can be edited unauthenticated.

I play Factorio quite a bit on Wayland and have never had a crash. I rarely use Steam but have a vague recollection of the overlay giving me a bad time. Might be something to try disabling if you haven't already.

> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously.

I don't actually see why this is obvious. Firing employees, sure, good amount of leeway there, but I fail to see why an executive should "obviously" be able to remove or hamstring a department that the legislature has passed a law creating. The entire job of the executive is to "execute" on the agenda passed by the legislature. Removing or interfering with departments doing their job is the opposite of that.

To be fair, if you ignore the war, it's not spending that makes the deficit go up under Republicans; it's the tax cuts. It's like announcing you are going to get your household finances together by quitting your job.

And they are doing it again. The latest budget proposal involves ~4 trillion in tax cuts and ~2 trillion in spending cuts. Wild for a group that a few months ago was panicking at how much debt we have.

> The thing about Charleston's fence is you don't know why the fence was erected. But we do. The government created it, and the government can remove it.

Knowing Bob put up the fence is not the same as knowing WHY Bob put up the fence. You've answered the who, not the why.

Quick question... Which one of those do I contact when my credit card company is trying to hold me responsible for fraudulent charges on my credit card?

Until someone can answer me that question with a link to a form I can fill out with an agency that has a track record of actually fixing these problems, you've made no progress on convincing me we don't need the CFPB.

It's users. Between the die hard Trump supporters and the users who flag any political content on HN it's more or less impossible for anything DOGE related to stay up without the mods active protection. There's a contact link you can use at the bottom of the page if you think something is flagged that deserves said protection.

> Are they being fined or imprisoned? No.

Under this bar, everything Twitter and Facebook have done, and any meddling the government may have done in those ecosystems, isn't a Free Speech Issue. Considering the very administration now taking this action called being banned from Twitter a violation of their free speech these look like some pretty mobile goalposts.

> From my understanding, the definition of "The Press" is quite large and allows many entities, since it is impossible for all of them to be physically present there has to be a mechanism for deciding who is present and not.

100% true! But surely you can see how "does the government like your speech?" being part of that mechanism is clearly a Free Speech issue, even if you assume it is legal? Remember, this is the Government. It's not like it's Trump disinviting them from his house because they hurt his feelings.

It's literally the government directly punishing a member of the press for their speech. What's the bar for a "free speech" issue in your mind?

Free speech for me but not for thee.

In addition to appeals there is also impeachment. There are plenty of ways to check a rogue judge without having to weaken the judicial branch itself.

> why would they respect the impeachment verdict from congress?

Supposedly at that stage everyone would stop following their instructions. This may be part of why Trump is so set on replacing huge swaths of the government with loyalists.

> Is the federal judge correct here or is he overstepping some of his power

If the judge is overstepping the resolution rests with the legislature (either changing the law, or if the judge is truly ignoring it, impeachment). Or the decision can be appealed. It's not an excuse to ignore the order.

I get it's not a narrative game. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be reasoning behind the mechanics. The fact that most of my troops just suddenly disappear at this arbitrary time to me at least has no reasoning behind it. It's just some arbitrary marker I have to plan around. I think asking what my troops supposedly decided to do is a fair question.

> I think the criticisms are way overblown.

The game lost me as soon as the long fought war I was on the verge of winning was suddenly over at the end of the age. Units just gone hours down the drain. What supposedly happened narratively? The clock struck midnight and everyone decided to switch to farming?

Companies aren't people.

I'm trying to take you at your word that you aren't trying to be a jackass, but I'm honestly having a really hard time reading this another way so I'll ask:

Are you saying that overweight people lack self-respect?

That sucks, it shouldn't have happened. Assuming it happened as presented rather than being a critical look at your hiring practices it's pretty clearly discriminatory.

> nobody is allowed to even express these anecdotes

I mean, you just did and don't appear to be that concerned about someone linking it back to you.

I find the whole "we aren't allowed to talk about this" thing a bit of an ironic response here, because if you take a look at this thread it started with a woman sharing her experiences from her career, with them being brushed off as anecdotal, and obviously, she's privileged, and it's men who are disadvantaged now.

It looks to me like she got the exact same pushback the male anecdote did. Is she also "not allowed to express her anecdotes"?

So, unsupported assertions and anecdotes it is then.

> for an average 20 year old, it will be substantially easier in this industry to be hired and promoted as a woman than as a man.

You keep making claims like this, but never with data. Got any? Because I only ever see this backed by anecdotes.

> As difficult as it may have been to achieve the career outcomes you desire, it is significantly more difficult for a individual man with the same skillset to achieve the same outcomes without that preferential treatment.

As a man in this field, I can pretty concretely say I have never experienced the problems getting hired or getting promoted she just described.

I mean he's already demonstrated that beating a cop with a flagpole falls in the category of things he'll pardon, so I'm not really sure what is and isn't in scope now.

For security work maybe but ostensibly this is accounting work. We are still claiming this is all an audit right?

I'm not aware of anyone questioning his skillset beyond basic questions of experience. Rather what's being questioned is this person's access to highly sensitive data given his shady recent history.

Like sure, maybe I'll hire an ex bank robber to help improve my security, but do I give him the code to the vault and write access to the inventory a year after he broke in?

Banning cars entirely would help global warming more than encouraging people to use EVs.

There is nothing internally inconsistent about weighing the pros and cons and deciding what measures are and aren't worth the benefit considering the drawbacks.

That doesn't require GPLv4 though. Anyone wanting to switch their project to the AGPL can just start releasing new versions under it. Existing code would be available as GPLv3 and the newer stuff under AGPL, same as the v4 scenario.

If all Bitcoin holders sold their Bitcoins, who is buying? You need to have a counterparty to the transaction.

If everyone is liquidating an asset, it's price will be zero, as no one is buying.

Doesn't the "or later" clause give the user the option of using the software under the newer license? I'm pretty sure they can keep applying the GPLv3.

>He said in his first campaign that he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and not suffer any consequences, and it turns out he was right.

Actually, that would probably be one of the few things that fail the "official act" test. Ordering the military to shoot someone, however....