Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | gspetr's comments login

Even on the face of it this sounds too far fetched.

If he's in it for the mission, and not for the money, then surely you can't claim that there aren't companies with a more meaningful mission than blogging?

And if there are, could it be that he can't get hired there? He's been literally offered money to leave and he's struggling financially, but he doesn't.


I think it just never hit close to home for you to matter. A developer I know had it happen to him.

A startup raised $25M squarely off his open source work and they've donated to him a grand total of $250, i.e. 0.001% of the value. He was pissed.


I've read some of the threads, and it appears that Discord and X are not the end of it.

Apparently, this same CM also runs Godot's Github account: some people have reportedly been banned on Github as well, and if that's true, having non-technical activists run your Github account is wild to me.

There have also been reports that some developers who are Titanium level backers (i.e. at least $100 monthly) of the Godot engine have been banned as well.


I’m not a regular backer, but I have been banned from the GitHub, so technically I can’t download a open-source project :)


Paternity testing is illegal in France. Attempting to verify a very basic fact that your child is indeed yours is criminal. So is outsourcing it to other (even neighboring) countries. If French customs intercept DNA samples or results in the mail, the perpetrators can face up to a year in prison and a €15,000 fine.


> It makes celebrities of people like Andrew Tate

Legacy Media made celebrities out of people far worse than Tate decades before Youtube: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Mesrine

Media's propensity to do so has been lampooned before as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Killers

Tagline: "Media made them superstars"

> and is a primary enabler of fringe belief bubbles.

Oh? It's not like anyone's ever seen conspiracy theory programs on TV before Youtube. Heck, if someone re-rendered some of those with AI to use Alex Jones' voice, even his viewers might not be able to tell the difference.


Experience and age have diminishing returns.

Biden's been hands-on in his domain for over 50 years, yet "quick" is definitely not the word that comes to most people's mind when they think of him nowadays.


Actually quick is definitely something that comes to mind. Quick in politics is of course relative, but the speed with which he has enacted major changes (for example marijuana legalization) is pretty quick in the realm of politics when congress is of the other party.


He’s barely able to read a teleprompter, not too confident that Biden himself enacted those changes.


We've had nearly 4 years with no scandals and emerged from the pandemic with the best economic recovery of any country, and despite having no margin to spare in Congress, master legislator Joe Biden has secured massive climate change, infrastructure, and gun control bills, not to mention he's ended our two decade war in Afghanistan and overseen the fastest wage growth of the two lowest income quintiles seen in modern history.

And every time people actually watch him speak (not just a selected clip), there's weeks of coverage about how alive JB seems, not recognizing that all evidence points to that being typical.


> We've had nearly 4 years with no scandals

This isn't the flex you think it is. When the media is lapping out of your hand like a 6 week old puppy instead of doing their fifth estate job, of course there are no scandals.

> and gun control bills,

You mean stripping Americans of their constitutional rights.

> not to mention he's ended our two decade war in Afghanistan.

Which was an unmitigated disaster.

> and overseen the fastest wage growth of the two lowest income quintiles seen in modern history.

Hello inflation.


>> and gun control bills

> You mean stripping Americans of their constitutional rights.

Not that I disagree with you, but when posters like modriano engage in political/partisan commentary on HN, I find it more productive to merely downvote and flag their comments rather than replying and getting engaged in a war.

A dead post makes quite the impression, as this sort of political commentary just generally defeats the quality of discourse on HN (which, you must admit, is much better than many other platforms, and I'd like to try to preserve it as long as possible).


> Biden's been hands-on in his domain for over 50 years, yet "quick" is definitely not the word that comes to most people's mind when they think of him nowadays.

Please don't post flamebaity political tangents on HN.

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


It’s a counterpoint anyone can identify with. One can interpret it uncharitably as flame bait if one wants to, but it need not be. It could have been Reagan in his second term, but some may not know who he was. Or Lee Smolin.


This is objectively false. It is not a counterpoint, because it's not an argument. It's an extremely subjective claim that is highly contentious (like jedberg's sibling comment[1]), definitely not something that "anyone can identify with" (as the vast majority of people do not know Joe Biden and instead view him through one of a small number of extremely skewed lenses) and clearly in the realm of "off-topic flamebait" that is not appropriate on HN.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40394477


I’d avoid the Reagan or other comparison as well even if I have medical evidence for their decline as you see with Reagan. In this specific case of Biden there’s not even that so it’s purely a political opinion and it’s definitely bait for flame even if not intended as such.


I don't know if that makes a significant difference for that purpose.

It's not like places where weddings take place are conspicuous enough that you couldn't tell the difference between them and a normal govt agency, and it's not like people don't know it is a very bad idea to sign documents where they do not even understand a single word.

The paper trail of a vanilla (let alone international) marriage is already big enough that I doubt criminals would want that, unless they have corrupt officials assisting them, which is a problem these measures do not address.


> it's not like people don't know it is a very bad idea to sign documents where they do not even understand a single word

The laws are there for people who may feel like they don’t have much choice in the matter. And yes lying to officials that you did in fact have a choice and are totally doing this of your own free will and yes of course you understand the document you’re signing is a big part of it.

This is similar to how some pregnancy related health clinics have things like “Sign the sample cup with blue pen if all good, use the red pen if you’re being forced to be here”


> This is similar to how some pregnancy related health clinics have things like “Sign the sample cup with blue pen if all good, use the red pen if you’re being forced to be here”

Oh, neat, I'd ever heard of that before.


>in Italy, a wedding is a contract

Last time I checked it is a contract just about anywhere, including the United States. Marriage rights are primarily property rights. (or "liabilities", ask any divorce lawyer).


It's not the same. In the US marriage issues are handled in civil court via contract law, that's true. But in Italy, a marriage literally involves an actual contract that you write in longhand and sign. You wedding vows are part of that contract. AFAIK infidelity etc. is a breech of contract.

In the US marriage involves submitting a marriage application (a short form) and appearing before a clerk. Marriage is a license from the state. At any rate, the difference in bureaucracy could not be more stark.


> or being unable to travel at certain times at all.

This is all fine and dandy until enough people decide to travel by car, and eventually there are traffic jams making you virtually unable to travel (by car) at certain times as well.


The times are different though. Plus the time when there tends to be the most traffic is when train fairs can be so ludicrous that it was not unreasonable for a group of 4 to consider chartering a helicopter from Bath to London instead.


You aren't lying. I recently visited London and did a day-trip by train to Oxford. I booked my ticket way ahead for 12 Pounds each way. If I had waited and bought a ticket at the station on the day of travel, it would have been closer to 80 Pounds each way IIRC. There was a bus option as well but I wasn't aware of it until I was already in Oxford. Bus was 13 Pounds each way.


>Apparently the tool seems to be reluctant to produce images of white people at all.

It's not that. It would have been one thing that when you said "I want a picture of 4 doctors" for the tool not to generate any white doctors at all.

The issue here is that I've read numerous reports of people saying that when they _explicitly_ specified something to the effect of "I want a picture of 4 _white_ doctors" it would straight up refuse them on the spot.

The latter is _not_ a training weights issue.

This is the broader, deeper problem.


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

Search: