The only reason the deep state or anyone has any power is because most people don't care. If people cared, we could change. Modern politics is all about distracting everyone with some crazy as often as possible to keep shifting attention and basically disabling any progress.
the deepstate has power because they will literally kill you if you don't and that's not the worst option. The deepstate will honeytrap, hack, blackmail, or otherwise destroy your life to get what "it" wants. People caring more isn't going to do anything if the Congressman doesn't want it known that he likes easy access to money and other illegal things.
I think the effect is actually backwards: there may only be 2 windows instead of 4 but the total amount of time window per year should theoretically go up significantly. The 2 removed reports should make both of those quarters less subject to insider trading and therefore more tradeable.
In companies I've been in, insider trading windows close because there's been a certain amount of time since the last report. So less frequent reports = more time for insider to know things that aren't public yet = more time unable to trade, not less.
I feel like it's not higher than most consumers, if I have a problem that is serious enough then that's the benefit and direct trade-off of renting - it shouldn't be my problem and my landlord should take it seriously. If everyone self-selects out we are just making the rental market even more hostile.
I feel like you are being a bit contradictory: the suggestion is to dissuade AI content - isn't that "design[ing] a site to deter group(s) of people that they don't want"? I personally don't want to vibe check every HN comment if I can avoid it, I don't even think you can quantify that in any meaningful way. We can engender a site like that at least in spirit. It may be equally as difficult but it's still worth fighting for.
Rules aren’t known to be a. Easily enforceable in case of AI b. Very dissuading
I don’t think most people read any sort of TOS, site rules, end license agreements, when was the last time you ever did?
Besides, sometimes it’s worth it to keep a rule breaking user if they are interesting and have worthwhile things to say despite their… theoretical conflict with the site intended use. Rules are too crude of a tool. Especially in case of AI they are quite nebulous even in a world where detection would be perfect (it isn’t).
What you want is to design a site that pulls people that value genuine human interaction. Niche sites are already immune to commerce and adversary bots because no one cares/knows about them. Well this site isn’t that niche I guess, some corporate astroturfing happens.
I am on one niche subculture social media and it has suprisingly well made design that is paramount to who it caters and who it dissuades. The result is lack of text ai content even though it isn’t obvious at first glance. LGBT flags are everywhere to dissuade the chuds. Israel flags are present to dissuade the annoying politics ppl from reddit. Lots of artsy stuff to speak to the genuine creativity.
It looks stupid but it isn’t stupid. It’s actually quite ingenious.
HN is probably already dead as it is too high profile in certain circles to avoid mainstream adversarial AI content.
I think we can be a little more nuanced than calling this sentiment outright stupid. A top HN article is about Scientific publications being overwhelmed with LLM trash. LLMs do pose a very real challenge to modern discourse. 10 years ago we could know that if we read something that sounded intelligible that at least some minimum effort had been put forth by a huma to be coherent. That bar is now completely gone. Now all internet users have to become adept AI-sniffers to know if some random bot isn't wandering themnoff a mental cliff with perfect formatting and eloquent prose. Having visceral reactions to that aren't unfounded in my opinion. We've lost real signal and having a forum like this be polluted will be a big casualty if we aren't careful and deliberate about our reaction to AI.
I think it's similarly stupid to open source projects not accepting ai-generated code or pull requests. If the code is good, review it and accept it, if it's not, then don't. Same with HN comments. Reading is not such hard work that a literate person has to strain under the weight of ai-generated spam -- at least I haven't seen any concerning trends and I read HN often.
It matters to me because I'm reading it now and feel more informed about this problem. Throwing the towel in and saying it's all pointless isn't helpful.
It's not throwing in the towel, it's about doing things that we the people can actually do.
One thing, we the people can do, is pressure our politicians to break up Google along with the rest of big tech.
There are many primary challengers this cycle that are running anti-monopoly platforms. Help their cause, signing pointless petitions is just West Wing style fantasy that is extremely childish.
I didn't see that review in the 4 shown in that section until I refreshed the page... there are some good ones in there, including a Hacker News shoutout :D
Does it make it less funny? Do you find yourself laughing, but then you get soured because although the chuckle that was made was genuine, it came about from something that was created by a computer, so we have to hate ourselves for chuckling. Is that how it works?
In theory, it's a legal requirement based on GDPR and CCPA as well as many other new digital rights laws across Europe and many states in the USA. SoundCloud is probably big enough to do that correctly otherwise e.g. the GDPR penalty is a highish percentage of the company's total revenue which gives the laws a good amount of "teeth".
> the GDPR penalty is a highish percentage of the company's total revenue which gives the laws a good amount of "teeth"
Under 2% of GDPR complaints even result in fines. And that would require there to be grounds for a complaint - there's no way for an external user to tell whether the delete is actually done, and the DPA won't force them to submit to a third-party source code audit.
reply