fzeroracer

Okay, but where's the product? You described the product, but didn't share it.

Are you just completely unaware with what's going on in the US or something? The reason why we're here is because of corruption within private companies leading to mass accumulation of wealth which has reality-bending effects on politics. Trump and the cronies is as much a symptom as it is a cause; related to the way billionaires bought literally all of news and social media over 30 years and weaponized it for their own personal propaganda.

You're not going to solve this problem with a 'strong justice system', you're going to solve it by making sure no one can get that wealthy in the first place. I mean we're literally in a topic about Jeffry Epstein who is so deeply connected to everything that it would make your average TV show seem like a hack.

It really is quite amazing and disgusting how truly interconnected so many of the 'celebrity' figures were tied to Epstein's network, all of them working to undermine our institutions in assistance to an absolutely heinous individual. None of the rich or wealthy have any actual morals or any sort of sensibilities, it's all just a facade.

> I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).

No, but charities can be choosers and beggers don't get a choice. I literally just pointed out a charity which does exactly what I said, one of the biggest charities in the US and the greatest example of how just relying on charity doesn't work, especially as they behave contrary to the literal scripture.

> I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me.

It will always affect you. Who do you think pays for when people have to go to the hospital and seek aid? Or when our 'charity' fails and people that would otherwise be fine with things like unemployment aid end up homeless? Or when we need more police because people who need medication or food can't afford it? It's you and me.

> Consider incident handling. What if your AI sets up monitoring that detects errors or outages, wakes up an agent, gives it the problem context, then sets it to work so it can debug the issue, produce a fix, then deploy it? You now have an end-to-end system that works 24/7. Many issues will probably be resolved before you've even noticed them.

Have you ever been actually involved in trying to fix an error or outage? Like actually on an on-call rotation where you had to deal with reported issues?

> This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale.

If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US.

> It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached.

Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.

> If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.

This is just the usual 'lazy poor' rhetoric. It's out of date by about 15 years.

> The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.

We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.

> I think a useful litmus test for these kinds of stories is: do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs? That's what this site is for.

I think this is a poor litmus test, because there are plenty of stories on HN where the majority perspective is going to be either agreement or disagreement. For example, zero day exploits, leaks, anything related to Tesla circa 7-8 years ago etc. The notion that every conversation needs to have multiple perspectives is a common fallacy; I think we can agree that things like companies ignoring security holes is bad for example and someone saying 'actually, it's good' isn't actually adding anything productive.

> If not, they're wrong for this site; more than wrong, corrosive. The stories themselves aren't bad (I have a lot of strong political beliefs too), but they're incompatible with the mode of discussion we have here: an unsiloed single front page and a large common pool of commenters.

That ship sailed long ago with stuff like the Google Manifesto or companies like Palantir. People rightfully point out ycombinators (and by extension, HNs) connection to the current political environment which means people here, especially long standing users, will find themselves more and more agitated.

For me at least, these kind of stories are increasingly unavoidable because they aren't just things I read on the internet, they're directly my life. Schools have gone into lockdown here in Seattle when ICE activity flares up, stores I've gone to have needed to prepare and think long and hard about what to do when ICE knocks at the door. Naturally this means people are going to gravitate towards stories here that are directly related to their life, and when those stories get squashed people start to notice the disconnect. People might go on HN to avoid these stories, but I literally cannot avoid my life.

Make no mistake, I fully believe the Supreme Court is complicit in this manner and has long since abdicated their duties to uphold the law and the constitution. But my point is that when the Supreme Court comes out and says that the President is immune to all actions they take, it seems like a folly to try and pretend that they don't mean what they say, at least as long as Trump is President. The 'law' is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they've decided Trump is the law.

> Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that.

Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?

And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote:

"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today."

Boss, they already require judicial warrants. They're blatantly violating constitutional rights. Do you think we have constitutional rights or not? Do we have laws or not?

The strongest interpretation of your posts is that you know exactly what you're doing, because you've done it multiple [1] times [2] now [3].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46559763

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46536148

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46515813

[flagged]

> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."

This has already been proven to be a lie thanks to the five different videos of the incident in question. They shot him after removing his legal weapon for concealed carry that he was permitted to have on his person.

You can look at his posts over the last month or so here, he's objectively a terrible person that will invent whatever narrative is necessary to justify the murder of individuals exercising their constitutional rights. There's like five different video angles of the incident in question in this thread alone all of which tell the exact story. Flag and move on.

This angle is even worse than the prior videos and makes it absolutely, 100% clear that this was an execution. The individual in question was a US citizen, lawfully carrying a firearm and was a registered nurse. Every single ICE agent involved should be locked away for life at bare minimum.

They've been swarming everyone with multiple agents, even people that are objectively not resisting arrest [1]. That's part of what they do to provide cover. It makes it harder to see the victim in question for any bystander taping the incident. Same reason why whenever they arrest a protester they immediately surround them.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1q9p1dp/man_kn...

It's absolutely inexcusable, even moreso than the murder of Renee Good. Though I fully expect the usual suspects to show up and claim it was justified because he was resisting arrest, which seems to be the popular modus operandi for justifying execution by the state.

Video of the incident in question [1]. This thread will likely be flag-killed instantly.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qlpzu8/anothe...

edit: Additional video [2] of the victim prior to the shooting. They were a lawful observer confronted by ICE due to observing and recording them.

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlt6s2/video_showing_...

The full video [1]. Warning that it's graphic, and as close to an outright execution as it gets.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qlpzu8/anothe...

As an aside, there was another ICE murder in Minneapolis just an hour or so ago [1]. If you thought Renee Good's murder was bad, this is just straight up an execution with no pretense. Once news catches up I'll post the full story.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qlpzu8/anothe...

Unfortunately there's a loud contingent of incredibly proud idiots that post here as well that really like to pretend they know what they're doing.

The people going 'well of course' or 'this is for the user' drive me insane here because as said, there are secure ways you can build a key escrow system so that your data and systems are actually secure. From a secure design standpoint it feels more and more like we're living in Idiocracy as people argue insecure solutions are secure actually and perfectly acceptable.

> Did you pay any attention at all to the 2024 election? Biden's age? Inflation? The half-hearted, too-late pivot on border enforcement? What you say is nonsense. It's twisted misinformation. There was a lot more going on.

Did you? Biden and the Democratic party was entirely focused on attempting to appeal to 'centrists' and Republicans, exactly what you wanted and they lost because of it.

> Yeah, it's cathartic to act like a kid on a playground, and unleash your inner asshole because some other kid was mean, but it's stupid and immature.

No, it's called having an actual policy and stance. If someone's behaving like a dumb asshole then they should be called out on being a dumb asshole. We should expect more from our politicians and one of those things involves actually calling this shit out.

> The dems are weak, but that's because they want to stay exactly as they are instead of becoming a truly majoritarian party. If the dems make Trump-like power grabs (as many liberals fantasize about), it'll just make Trump stronger, because he can and will use the backlash.

At this point, the only recovery from the damage Trump has inflicted upon this country is going to be a massive power grab. That means dissolving ICE and arresting everyone involved, packing the supreme court, pulling out all of the Trump appointees and criminally investigating everyone involved with this administration. And let me be very clear: any Dem that does not agree not only deserves to lose, but they deserve to be harassed for the rest of their life and never, ever hold another job again. There is no middle ground anymore.

This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Trump literally got elected off of pure partisan vilification, insults and just bullshit in general. The idea that the left need to go high while Trump and the GOP openly courted shit like pizzagate is just nonsense.

The fact that the dems are weak assholes unable to make even symbolic measures towards someone that's openly violating the constitution and harassing citizens is symptomatic of the deeper rot of attempting to be a 'big tent' party and having zero actual spine or policy.

> Want counting in a day? That's xenophobia. Want to limit certain time window for counting?

Why do either of these matter? If you assume paper voting in-person is secure, then there is zero reason to also limit the time spent counting or the time window for counting. Anything past that point is clearly trying to fill some sort of agenda for the sake of disenfranchising people who cannot adhere to the times you're trying to set.

> I have a friend somewhere else in the world who is in the business of providing electronic voting machines to governments (cities and countries) to run elections. I won't mention where in the world because there are only so many of these companies and his is very prominently known in the region he serves. They develop the machines, write the software and provide the service.

> He told me stories of various elections across the region where governments or specific political parties ask him to tilt the playing field in their favor by secretly altering the code. He has refused every single such requests because, as he put it, if you do for one side or the other, sooner or later you get burned (or worse) and it's over. He happens to be one of the honest and responsible players. That's not necessarily the case for others.

Just to be clear, if you are actually telling the truth you have a fundamental duty to reveal the company in question and who is making these requests, as doing so can constitute a felony in many countries across the world. So I recommend you telling us where this is happening.

I've stopped expecting anything from this Supreme Court, since it's clear they've also decided to cede power to the executive. The tariff decision is an easy slam dunk that they keep punting and it's clear that they don't want to involve themselves in anything that might have actual blow-back.

Do you agree with the contents of the 4th amendment?

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Simple question. Yes/No. Choose one.

There are, Dang has talked publicly about some of the mechanisms they've used to try and deter bad posting. Most of them are gone iirc (such as shadow banning and artificially slowing down the site) but rate limiting is still one of the mechanisms they have in place.