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

An argument against could refer to established practices of limiting power of executive branch in particular...

Looks like an opinion. If structural principles are legally binding, we can remember other cases from other areas.

This isn’t an “opinion.” It’s how almost everyone thinks the constitution works, including people who think modern administrative agencies are permissible. They don’t deny the tripartite structure is binding; they think that executive agencies exercising quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions can be defended as really being an exercise of executive discretion.

Why this suddenly becomes urgent? For long time we had automatic emails with "thank you" which weren't written by humans, why something is different today?

I found these e-mails always impolite. I knew perfectly well, that they were an automated response that only causes work on my end.

But this HN submission also highlights something else: AI content should be labelled. It is not always obvious that an AI has produced a PR.


I'm not sure the author understands the nature of the disagreement. A few times he put a sentence assuming it's an agreed upon fact...

The author is a LLM.

Hmm :) this is another minimalist, let's compare... https://terraformindustries.com

Apollo I disaster suggests pure oxygen atmospheres are to be avoided.

And the 1961 fire that killed cosmonaut Valentin Bondarenko in an altitude chamber. The Soviets covered it up until the 1980's, so NASA made the same mistake.

For every human onboard ISS there is always place in the docked spaceship. Exceptions: when spaceships break, replacements are usually sent - like, when Soyuz lost coolant or Starliner was considered too unreliable. While waiting for replacements, those ploblematic spacecrafts still serve as lifeboats, except maybe Crew Dragons can carry more people than those 4 they usually carry...

Crew Dragon can do 7 astronauts, but NASA only wanted SpaceX to build it for 4.

The contingency for the Starliner astronauts in case of an emergency was to strap them down in the cargo area. Which wouldnt be optimal, but better than certain/likely death onboard the ISS.


Telll it to my friend who was escaping a country under sanctions and had to move his money elsewhere. His bank didn't have that miraculous power, but Bitcoin did.

Yes, I agree. Bitcoin is great for crime.

The U.S. dollar is the #1 currency used for organized crime.


Very true:

- US Dollar: Backed by the US government, which has a monopoly on violence over its citizens and pretty much the entire world. The Federal Reserve has the ability to print new dollars as demanded by US government policies and is responsible for funding the endless conflicts that the US has been involved in overseas for the last 100 years. The inflation of the US dollar cripples the middle class and weights down future generations with debt that they will never be able to pay off.

- Bitcoin: 100% free of any kind of force, created by an individual who believed individuals should have sovereign control of their money and is 100%. Due to the limited supply cap it makes wars unfundable and actually increases in value as the years go on so you can pass it on to your children and their children.


Even as someone who thinks crypto is an absolute cesspool, and while acknowledging that even in the "move cash" scenario that the vast majority of it is shady, from avoiding taxes to ... whatever, to be honest, I can't get too mad if it helps the "average person" who is sincerely escaping a "problematic" country/home do so.

> Value can only teleport if someone is willing to trade traditional currency in exchange on the other side.

If no one paid traditional money to your friend on the other side, he’d have no money. Also, whoever was sanctioning the country, can also very well sanction and seize the bitcoin if they’d like.


This argument is always held up as an argument for bitcoin. I swear it's sometimes the only one that bitcoin proponents can think of!

So the currents will continue to be tracked, no? :) Seriously, we should find out why this system was desired and created in the first place to answer this question. Good question...

The answer in general is we monitor things to understand them, so we know how they will affect us. Same thing we do for all the metrics that allow us to forecast the weather every week.

If jury is still out on positivity, long term, of AI, I'd really like to see arguments for that. Historically all - almost? - technical improvements were net positive; even some blunders had upside. AI is dangerous, yes, but e.g. fission was developed for the bomb, and now powers significant numbers of households worldwide - the tech less than 90 years old.

> all - almost? - technical improvements were net positive

I think it’s very likely AI is a technical improvement. But there is still a chance it’s a small improvement being massively overbuilt.


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

Search: