Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mc32's commentslogin

They could at least address that the man and woman on the street would easily identify as people who need to be put in a paddy wagon. Leave the unsure cases alone. Get the obvious ones.

The more eyes the better the chances. Obviously it’s not total information awareness the likes one of the previous DNIs dreampt about. We see its imperfection if the fact that a very public case in an Arizona abduction case is basically cold. They basically have zero leads -which is pretty incredible in this day and age.

...but they aren't the only ones who use logographs and those other places don't have the same legacy...

The previous admin also ruled via executive order. It said it would find ways to do things even if struck down by the SCOTUS such as the school loan forgiveness, firearms controls, speech suppression via “embeds” etc.

The myth of the Supreme Court having any check on executive power was disproven by the "switch in time to save 9", where Owen Roberts agreed to stop obstructing The New Deal so FDR wouldn't implement court-packing and term limits. That was almost 90 years ago.

If only the conversation could be rooted with this understanding, rather than it being a leaf.

Why is this a bad thing? The New Deal literally created a society that allowed the country to flourish for a solid 50 years before neoliberal economics took hold.

I like the New Deal! My point is that the realpolitik of the court being subservient to the other two "coequal" branches goes back almost 100 years.

Marbury v Madison established judicial review in 1803 but there is no enforcement mechanism. The switch in time shows that practically the Court is subject to the political pressure of Congress and the President.

The Clinton impeachment and the lack of Trump impeachment show (imo) that there is effectively no rule of law in the United States anymore.

Congressional representation is subject to gerrymandering for partisan and racial reasons, and majority control of Congress gives you broad power to pass laws and punish political enemies. Controlling both Congress and the Presidency gives a single party the ability to completely ignore any constitutional boundaries.

America's experiment in multi-racial democracy has failed and their international influence will continue to wane as it has since the 80s. It seems like something that happens "slowly, and then all at once", like bankruptcy.


That’s like saying we shouldn’t hold a drunk driver accountable for his driving because we all had a beer sometimes.

At the same scope and scale?

Can you see a problem here, a failure of the intended system of checks and balances?


Nobody cares if an admin "rules via executive order". What we care about is whether they rule according to the law. That is, for example: the administration is free to fire whoever it wants from the civil service as long as it follows the laws about how and when this is done. This administration, however, has repeatedly fired federal employees without following the law.

In more than 85% of cases brought against the administration, lower courts have ruled that the administration has broken the law.

So, you can decide if you think SCOTUS overruling those decisions is an indication of a problem, or justice winning out.

I also don't care when an administration says "We will find a way to ...." - I care about whether they do so, and do so in accordance with the law. The Biden administration followed SCOTUS rulings on its orders, and AFAIK, did not find workarounds for any of the things you mention.


Biden signed about 150 executive orders across his term.

Guess how many trump has done since just last year...


And Obama did this. See his famous pen and phone quote:

"We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I've got a pen, and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.."


What Obama didn't say: I don't care about what the courts say, the courts are bad people, the only law that matters is me.

That’s unworkable: asking a recipient unfamiliar with producers to know whether producer is reputable or not in advance and if the producer is unscrupulous you expect every affected buyer to follow up or be in violation of importation laws?

If you are not sure, buy from within the EU from an importer who deals with this.

The old system of spot inspections worked because most import volume was from known, repeat importers.


So consumers should just pay for a random import company to ”pinky promise” that it is safe? It is well known that most of the crap that is CE hasn’t actually gone through a million euro testing program. It’s just a stamp. And if something happens then well that LLC goes bankrupt (but odds are low)

License importers? Have them audited, post a bond, etc?

CE is self certification for most part. It’s just the seller saying ”yea, I promise it is safe”.

Should consumers have to post a bond to receive a package from abroad?


I think thats asking much from people some of whom easily get scammed by phone banks in Eastern Europe, India etc. many people will not put in that effort.

The results were predictable and predicted but politicians, state and local went whole hog on equity. That along with NCLB results on this catastrophe. We’re finally seeing some needed pushback. You can’t just hand out As to everyone and pass everyone as it’s a kindergarten assignment and then expect excellence. You’re teaching people who will become adults and you’re shortchanging them on skills if you don’t require proficiency. It’s also unfair to apt students who put in the time to learn and do well.

I can’t believe they actually went so far as to dismantle the little haven for achievement that was Lowell high school in SF by getting rid of GPA and entrance exams for a few years. Eventually furious alumni got that idiocy overturned but it should have never happened.

We’re also seeing higher ed address grade inflation by capping As at some institutions of renown.


It’s true we should not judge people by today’s morals -one can’t be a visionary and predict tomorrows morals; but, that said it seems those people strayed well beyond what was acceptable even back then. So there is room for criticism.

Makes sense since they don’t produce future taxpayers. They should also adjust retirement age based on life expectancy -of course people won’t like this but you can’t overcome the math. Separately, I also think airfare should be in part based on weight.

Childless people have a shorter life expectancy by ~2 years. So if we unsocalize the cost and base it on that factor, people with children should be paying more as they are a strain on the system for longer.

Fair. They need to calculate the numbers and come out with fair payouts. Naively it would seem individuals (children) pay more in taxes than it takes to cover two years.

That would be counterproductive, as then there would be less incentive to have children, and the fertility rate is already in the tank as is.

Should people with disabled children pay even more, since they not only fail to produce future taxpayers, but are also a huge burden on the social system? What if your children die before even paying a single cent into the system? People with jobs/hobbies with a high risk of being taken out of the workforce? People with genetic diseases? Or just go straight to the root of the issue: anyone above 60, who can't even dress themselves, we get rid of.

We should really gamify the system as much as possible to make it fun for everyone involved.


There’s a difference between childless by choice and childlessness because of natural infertility, etc. presumably the parents didn’t choose their children to be burdens and so we’d chalk that up to statistical probability.

How do you know they didn't? Some people don't want to screen for birth defects or check for compatibility between themselves. They don't do all preventative measures, don't use gene-editing therapies or do harmful things like drinking and smoking while being pregnant.

Two years ago I was booked for a flight with my wife and four kids. I would say the average of all 6 of us at the time was about 85lbs. Not only that, but because we have to fit in a vehicle with all of our stuff, we pack light, at most one roll-aboard each.

The plane was overweight so they were choosing reservations to involuntary bump to the next day and of course we were selected. No amount of reason mattered; if they bumped us based on an “average weight”, they’d be no better off than when they started.


Someone hasnt heard of Goodharts Law.

I agree on the aesthetics drastically breaking from legacy but I very much doubt charvers will afford this car.

Some UK soccer players

There was a time when monks were the few who had time to dedicate to learning and discovery eventually leading to the renaissance.

If you are trying to point out that there was something good with religion or necessasity of it, i'm aware of this argument.

We do not know what would have happened without religion.

Just because some aspects of it was helpful (perhaps) to our current state, doesn't mean you can be against the whole concept of it. I also do not have to bow down to it or see it as a positive because of it. I can easily call it an evil necessaity.


I’m not arguing for religion or that it’s good or bad only that one facet of that religion allowed for exploration (they had lots of time to think) and that along with stewardship of critical texts (books) fomented the European renaissance from which we still benefit today and likely tomorrow.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: