pc86

Which part is incorrect?

I mean that, you're either saying he wasn't democratically elected, or that this move doesn't help domestic labor. The first is objectively false, and the second is covered in the most basic college economics courses.

Fewer people means less qualified applicants for the same jobs, which means wages go up. Maybe companies like Microsoft have enough dead weight that they will just absorb the losses in growth but most companies don't have that luxury and this is hitting staff aug body shops so it will hit mid market and small employers as well unless it gets overturned.

I think there are plenty of qualified and hard-working people in China, I'm not sure this change would increase the number of people there the same way it might in places like Europe or India.

In the best case we could hope this will lead to increased wages to American citizens, but realistically I think the most likely impact is it pisses a lot of people off, causes a lot of headaches for a lot of people, and has no real impact for most.

Edit: Would love to hear a coherent argument as to why my comment is off topic and deserving of downvotes but I'm sure that won't happen.

Even if this absolute nonsense is accurate (it's not), you're agreeing with me. I said there's not a category difference between $12M and $85M in this context. And you're saying $100M is where it starts being different.

This seems like a distinction without a difference. In the context of CEOs sacrificing the greater good for their bonus, [basically] nobody has done that for a $250k bonus. We're often talking 8 figures, tens of millions of dollars.

Is this really a categorically different thing if we're talking about $85 million vs. $12 million?

> I'm assuming that, if this rumor is true, somebody in the Trump campaign forced somebody at NASA to do this out of some misguided nostalgia.

Why would you assume that?

This doesn't seem like the type of comment it makes sense to create a throwaway for.

In what universe is the judiciary not part of the government?

Is it your contention that most people in the country constantly deal with drug addicts stealing their packages? Because it's not true.

I find it hard to believe that all but a very, very narrow segment of society can't go 3 or 4 days without tracking a package?

What hyperbolic nonsense, just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean it can't be bad policy. Wealth taxes are a fool's errand and serve only to damage and slow the economy.

I think not wanting to pay some yearly tax on that $1.4 million because the government pretends that the same as having $1.4M cash in the bank, or making $1.4M in a year, is fine.

Not wanting to pay the property taxes associated with a $1.5M home is the problem.

And care about the rule of law. You cannot pass retroactive laws, you cannot pass laws that target individual people. If you pass a general law (which could very well have reasonable objections), people have to have a chance to leave.

"I'm passing this law that is effective the exact millisecond I sign it, tough shit if you don't like it" is tyranny and despotism. But based on your comment I think you know that.

> why on earth do you think every other person out there will only use these for innocuous nerdy reasons?

I don't, which I why I didn't say that :)

It's kind of an interesting catch-22 if that's the right idiom. Places with these laws do generally have a higher rate of property crime when comparing like to like, e.g. urban areas of similar size, to those without it. However that higher crime rate often leads to installation of security cameras covering more private areas.

How do these glasses "enable" it any more than a gopro, a security camera, or the phone that nearly every person in the developed world already has?

I don't know if I agree that man-on-the-street pseudo journalistic stuff is one of the "typical scenarios." Any time I see a product like this I think:

    1) Can I use it to watch a more immersive movie without bothering people who may be in the next week?
    2) Can I use it to make my games more enjoyable, either console or PC?
    3) Can I use it to record IPSC/USPSA matches?
    4) Can I use it for work?

I don't think these will make more people bother strangers on the street, it's just another way the same people can do that.

What does this have to do with WhatsApp?

Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.

I don't know the movie or show but there is a scene where someone asks a woman who quick smoking a long time ago (10 years maybe?) if she ever thinks about smoking and she says "every time someone lights up next to me at the bar I want to suck the smoke out of their lungs."

I smoked more than a pack a day for probably 7 or 8 years and quit a couple years after college, not quite cold turkey but basically just trying to wait a little longer between each cigarette. Eventually when the last half of the pack is stale and disgusting but you smoke them anyway because they're expensive, you just kind of stop one day. It was many, many years of no nicotine at all before I stopped thinking about it every day though.

> For a long time...a lot of online news stories would reference websites, papers, polls, etc. without linking to them.

The "$CITY_NAME Business Journal" websites are the absolute worst with this. They'll refer to something specific, for example "$BIGCO's 2025 10-K filing" and it will be a link. That link will go to the 10-K, right? Nope! It goes to another page at the same business journal. Maybe that page is a summary of the 10-K, but probably not. Maybe it's just the general index page for all the articles about $BIGCO at that journal. What it links to, it definitely won't be the specific thing described by the text of that link.

OK but you talked about people going fast. 84% YOY increase in volume shows people are going a lot faster.

You can move the goalposts to "yeah but it's not any good" but 90% of everything is crap anyway, and that was true long before AI.

> But I often do need to understand why this change was made.

This is the reason (and IMO the only reason) code should be commented. The why can often be hundreds of characters explaining technical limitations at the time, business considerations, or even just "we know this will break in a non-trivial number of instances but it's an incremental step forward to our end goal so we're just doing it."

I agree with everything you said except I would simply add that "the average freelance designer online" is simply an AI meat proxy (which does, by definition, make them worse than AI since you could just use AI in the first place and get the same results).

This triggers a much bigger question for me - why does nothing happen to these authors based on this feedback? I don't mean "oh you missed a meeting or withdrew your paper so you get fired" by any means, but why isn't there a way for academic committees or employers to look up PhDs and see "oh interesting this person has a history of submitting solo-authored papers then being completely unable to answer all but the most high-level questions about it."

Short of just the general "vibes" type of reputation that follows someone around this type of behavior seems pretty low risk, which is a large part of why people engage in it. Perhaps the risk should increase a couple orders of magnitude to stop it from happening.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make? I would also say trying to abridge speech is generally "un-American" as well as "anti-American." Are you trying to differentiate between the two terms? Or are you saying because HUAC existed half a century ago that nothing can possibly be considered un/anti-American?

I'm skimming the "Aftermath" section and I'm not seeing where Biden's inauguration was cancelled or Trump retained power or anything else? If Trump "refused to peacefully transfer power" how was power peacefully transferred to Biden exactly on schedule the same way it's happened in every other election?

I do see this happened on Jan 7th though:

> 7:10 p.m.: Shortly after Twitter unlocked Trump's account, Trump released a video statement condemning the violence at the Capitol, saying that "a new administration will be inaugurated" and that his "focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly, and seamless transition of power" to the Biden administration.

I mean, to pick what is perhaps the easiest example, wanting to abridge speech is anti-American by its very definition.

It is possible to have a thing that is anti-American. So I'm not sure what good it is to reject the term altogether.

> When Trump refuses to peacefully transfer power to his victorious opponent

When did this happen? I didn't realize Biden wasn't inaugurated. I could have sworn he was the President for 4 years.

I can understand why you would think this - or rather, why you'd want to think this - because it lets you lean really hard into the "Republicans dumb lol" trope. But just to pick two of your examples, there are plenty of establishment Republicans who are quick to vote for increased gun control, and at least a few establishment Democrats who need quite a bit of convincing to do so. One side is better than the other (which is which depends on which side you're on, of course), but I'd say it's 80/20 when the media presents it more like 95/5.

And I don't know what "low class" means but if you're referring to socioeconomic status that doesn't match what you said either. According to Pew the bottom quintile (<36k/yr) is about 60/35 Democrat. The top quintile (215k/yr+) is about 53/46. Upper-middle ($144-215k/yr) is the only one with a Republican edge, and the other two (36-48, 48-144) are within the margin of error to 50/50.

I think of all your examples you probably have the strongest case to make with "rural" but I've met plenty of rural Dems in my life.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisan-coa...