doom2

> the nature of the job as it is currently set up inevitably will lead to mistakes from cops who wouldn’t have violent behavior otherwise.

What if we focused available resources less on arming police with military equipment and more on better training? For example, the $80B+ that Congress gave ICE (an agency that previously had budgets closer to $10B) could be used to train officers on better community engagement, de-escalation strategies, suspect identification (to avoid relying on things like race, ethnicity, or language), and trigger discipline. It may come at the cost of having fewer MRAPs, body armor, or shock gloves[1] but could result in fewer civilian deaths.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-electric-shock-gloves-85ff746...

The other thing making it difficult to have a serious debate about is that one portion of the population keeps getting asked to moderate their positions on immigration (in all its facets) while there is little to no similar pressure on the opposing group. To put it another way: why should I move towards the center (from my "left" position) when I see the right continue to push immigration policy to the extremes?

This is nothing new. For example, in the 2006 World Cup, the Allianz Arena was called FIFA WM-Stadion München (among many other stadiums that year).

> A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive

It seems quite ironic, given the frequent complaints about the inability of Congress to either govern effectively or fix health insurance (for many and various definitions of "fix"), that the ACA was so divisive. At least it got passed! Yet given the opportunity twice (2017-2019, 2025-2027), a politically viable alternative hasn't been offered up by opponents of the ACA, let alone being able to fully repeal it.

I don't think it has to be about ethics at all. People might just be turned off by digital illustrations of food that could pass as creatures from a Ridley Scott film. I'm also a little surprised that this remains the aesthetic that AI continues to go with. With the top end being AI actresses giving major news outlet interviews, have basic free tier models not advanced beyond cosmic horror food?

It doesn't help when the US President not only openly encourages it but also officially forgives people perpetrating it on his behalf.

What should we expect when it's coming from the top?

What theft? Modern humans learned from the works of past humans, LLMs learned from the works of modern humans, other LLMs learned from those LLMs. Given that the methods by which Anthropic and OpenAI obtained training data remains a legal gray area, it's not so cut and dry to me that distillation is stealing. It's just a continuation of the long tradition of building knowledge on the knowledge of others.

It's a shame there isn't the kind of competition in the US when it comes to mobile phones as there is in China. Many HN users would likely never buy a Chinese OEM device, but if you look at the variety of devices offered by Chinese brands, they're trying all sorts of approaches. Kind of like their EV market. Meanwhile, your choices in the US are Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Google, and that's pretty much it. I wouldn't say there's a ton of innovation between them...kind of like the large US automakers.

> Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.

Interesting. By the same logic, shouldn't LEOs feel discouraged to wear balaclavas and other types of masks? For example, DHS officers in the US have been wearing masks with the excuse that it protects them from doxxing but if they're operating within the law, what do they have to fear? Transparency serves everyone.

> political promises and proposed solutions don’t work anyways

This is very effective for populist parties because in a way it keeps them from being held accountable by their own voters. When I hear interviews with Trump voters being faced with evidence of how Trump hasn't kept one campaign promise or another, it's exactly the sentiment above: politicians never keep their promises anyways and Trump is no different but we like him so we'll stick with him.

> This is more about holding government officials individually accountable.

The state can also file criminal charges against the officials, although given that the Flint water crisis didn't result in any criminal convictions despite the evidence, I'm not holding my breath. Not to mention that the state could choose _not_ to file charges. In which case, what avenue for justice is left? Financial compensation is only part of it.

Which is a little ironic given one of their arguments against DEI policies is that it chooses less qualified people in the name of diversity. If this administration isn't nominating on the basis of merit, what standing do they have to target law firms with DEI policies? [1]

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addr...

I guess satire doesn't come across in a thread where it fits in too well. My point was threefold:

1. The definition of American is not as black and white as people would like to think, so who is included and not included in "we Americans" is pretty nebulous. As a recent example, the debate over birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment.

2. Who should suffer the consequences of taking advantage of the H1B program? The workers hired under it? The business owners who hired them? The policy makers? If companies were truly 'scamming' the government as the parent comment said, it sounds like the owners of those companies should be punished, perhaps to a degree commensurate with the other anecdotes in this thread of lives being upended and people separated. As the parent comment said: "Sorry...but not sorry"

3. "Immigrants are taking jobs from Americans" is a refrain almost as old as this country is but is also not as clear cut as some users here seem to think. Not to mention that it's a very convenient political tool often used to redirect the anger of the poor or marginalized towards immigrants instead of the business owners and those with power who flaunted the law but will not be held to account. I guess "companies who hire illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans" just doesn't roll off the tongue in the same way.

> we Americans

We can also take a more critical look at the definition of what being American is. The 20th century, especially pre-1920, was rife with illegal immigration. Why should the descendants of those who skipped the line, who didn't come in "the right way", be able to now call themselves American and reap the unearned benefits of citizenship? They've taken and continue to take jobs from Americans who need them.

> Most of us are much closer to living in a porta potty than we’d like to think

Because of women and no-fault divorce? Didn't expect to see that conclusion in the comments. Maybe if we make it illegal it might slightly lower rates of homelessness, but let's see what it does to domestic violence, suicide, and spousal homicide statistics.

I've said it in a different thread, but I think we need to be more open to the ways that people can effect change. Maybe it's a new approach to politics, maybe it's something else. But the constant obsession about "we need to elect people to Congress and the White House to fix things for us" is crowding out whatever other potential solutions might be out there. We won't know until we try and stop thinking of the problem as only having one correct answer.

I somewhat frequently get recruiter mail from NYC-based companies. If it's clear the position is in office, I usually include the same bit in every response: I live ~75 minutes away by train. Make the commute free or heavily discounted for me and I'll come in the three days a week. Plus, since I won't be driving, I can do some work on the train.

> We have problems, too, but we are not powerless to fix them.

Indeed. Even as some of the more mainstream methods to address our current problems become less effective, we should be open to other ways change can come about. Among your list, many of those achievements had their roots in various approaches that didn't involve legislators.

> It's for students that have had their grades inflated in High school and got into the university based on their ethnic background, instead of merit/points on the SAT.

Why only students who got in based on ethnicity? What about students who only got in because their parents are wealthy or alumni? Or students who get in because of athletics but wouldn't otherwise meet academic admissions criteria? I don't know why there's all this focus (and pushback) on race based admissions when there are multiple other meritless avenues for students to get into college. That people focus on eliminating one and not the others is very telling.

Can you expand more on what makes it hysterical or an obsession, compared to any other issue one might have interest in?

> Having to raise prices isn't a great look but when they come out the other side they can drop pirces

The fun part is that they can drop prices but they'll still be higher than before the initial price increase, thereby increasing volume _and_ getting some extra profit. Consumers still lose.

> bans on AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment being exported

In some ways, a ban on semiconductor manufacturing equipment exports is also a good way to keep the price of consumer electronics and other goods that depends on memory high because of the potentially decade+ long shortage of RAM we're looking at. I wonder how people here would explain to someone outside the tech bubble how it's good, actually, that those prices keep rising because it means we're preventing China from getting better at AI.

It's good to know that despite warnings of a shortage in 2024, little was done in advance to prepare and now we're looking at years of shortfall for both commercial and consumer needs. Export controls preventing fab equipment being sold to China will likely extend it further. It will be interesting to see how much consumer electronics companies will be able to raise prices before people call it quits. Especially with the new normal of electronics getting more expensive post-release instead of less (eg, the PS5).

The problem is that someone in their 20s can't even envision a realistic path to where people in their 60s are. And for me personally, being somewhere between the two, I think I'm mostly doing things "right" and still am not optimistic I'll get to where my parents are. I don't even think I'll see all of the money I've paid into Social Security back, given the political rumblings about "reforming" that program. Which is to say that I can see why younger people might feel hard done by.

It should also be the legacy of voters that chose this and I don't think I'll soon forget or forgive it.

> The hyperscalers building AI infrastructure are willing to pre-commit to HBM and DDR5 capacity through the decade because they cannot afford a repeat of the 2024 shortage.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the article makes it seem like all that new capacity will be reserved for AI infra, not consumer electronics or personal computing, which is what my comment was specifically about. Happy to be proven wrong if Micron has said anything about reviving the Crucial brand or Sony committing to lowering console pricing because they (or their memory supplier) secured capacity.

> In a working economy, an increase in demand for electricity would be met with an increase in investment and capacity, and (at least in the long-term) would benefit all electricity buyers.

The same should apply to memory and GPU manufacturers and yet I have seen no commitments from them to increase supply, so the end result is that consumer electronics are becoming ever more expensive compared to even just a year ago. That doesn't feel like a working economy to me.

> For reference, the PS5 Pro has more than twice the number GPU CUs, an 8-core CPU, a 2TB SSD, a controller, and costs $899.

PS5 Pro had a launch price of $700, which already felt steep. How is $900 not even worse value? Even if it's "better" than the Steam Machine, let's not pretend that it's actually a good value for the hardware.

And why shouldn't it? There are so many prominent examples of badly implemented AI solutions. It's like how China is associated with cheap copycat products even though they are perfectly capable (and do!) produce many well made, quality things.

I think it'd be an enormous endorsement of Cursor/xAI and proof of improvement if SpaceX started using it to code the mission critical software running on Falcon 9. Which other AI company can say their models powered a rocket launch?

(mostly /s but I know I'd give it another look if it was that good)