> every AI-generated image one sees represents an instance where someone who might have contracted for an image did not
This is not at all true. Some percentage of AI generated images might have become a contract, but that percentage is vanishingly small.
Most AI generated images you see out there are just shared casually between friends. Another sizable chunk are useless filler in a casual blog post and the author would otherwise have gone without, used public domain images, or illegally copied an image.
A very very small percentage of them are used in a specific subset of SEO posts whose authors actually might have cared enough to get a professional illustrator a few years ago but don't care enough to avoid AI artifacts today. That sliver probably represents most of the work that used to exist for a freelance illustrator, but it's a vanishingly small percentage of AI generated images.
There is more to entry-level illustrators than SEO posts. In my daily life I've witnessed a bakery, an aspiring writer of children's books, and two University departments go for self-made AI pictures instead of hiring an illustrator. Those jobs would have definitely gone to a local illustrator.
> That sliver probably represents most of the work that used to exist for a freelance illustrator, but it's a vanishingly small percentage of AI generated images.
I prefer to get my illegally copied images from only the most humanely trained LLM instead of illegally copying them myself like some neanderthal or, heaven forbid, asking a human to make something. Such a though is revolting; humans breathe so loud and sweat so much and are so icky. Hold on - my wife just texted me. "Hey chat gipity, what is my wife asking about now?" /s
I have a personal-use app that has a hot loop that (after extensive optimization) runs for about a minute on a low-powered VPS to compute a result. I started in Java and then optimized the heck out of it with the JVM's (and IntelliJ's) excellent profiling tools. It took one day to eliminate all excess allocations. When I was confident I couldn't optimize the algorithm any further on the JVM I realized that what I'd boiled it down to looked an awful lot like Rust code, so I thought why not, let's rewrite it in Rust. I took another day to rewrite it all.
The result was not statistically different in performance than my Java implementation. Each took the same amount of time to complete. This surprised me, so I made triply sure that I was using the right optimization settings.
Lesson learned: Java is easy to get started with out of the box, memory safe, battle tested, and the powerful JIT means that if warmup times are a negligible factor in your usage patterns your Java code can later be optimized to be equivalent in performance to a Rust implementation.
I wrote a few benchmarks a few years ago comparing JS vs C++ compiled to WASM vs C++ compiled to x64 with -O3.
I was surprised that the heaviest one (a lot of float math) run about the same speed in JS vs C++ -> x64. The code was several nested for loops manipulating a buffer and using only local-scoped variables and built-in Math library functions (like sqrt) with no JS objects/arrays besides the buffer. So the code of both implementations was actually very similar.
The C++ -> WASM version of that one benchmark was actually significantly slower than both the JS and C++ -> x64 version (again, a few years ago, I imagine it got better now).
Most compilers are really good at optimizing code if you don't use the weird "productivity features" of your higher level languages. The main difference of using lower level languages is that not being allowed to use those productivity features prevents you from accidentally tanking performance without noticing.
I still hope to see the day where a language could have multiple "running modes" where you can make an individual module/function compile with a different feature-set for guaranteeing higher performance. The closest thing we have to this today is Zig using custom allocators (where opting out of receiving an allocator means no heap allocations are guaranteed for the rest of the stack call) and @setRuntimeSafety(false) which disables runtime safety checks (when using ReleseSafe compilation target) for a single scope.
If I have all the time in the world, sure. When I'm racing against a deadline, I don't want to wrestle with the borrow checker too. Sure, it's objections help with the long term quality of the code and reduce bugs but that's hard to justify to a manager/process driven by Agile and Sprints. Quite possible that an experienced Rust dev can be very productive but there aren't tons of those going around.
Java has the stigma of ClassFactoryGeneratorFactory sticking to it like a nasty smell but that's not how the language makes you write things. I write Java professionally and it is as readable as any other language. You can write clean, straightforward and easy to reason code without much friction. It's a great general purpose language.
Java is incredibly productive - it's fast and has the best tooling out there IMO.
Unfortunately it's not a good gaming language. GC pauses aren't really acceptable (which C# also suffers from) and GPU support is limited.
Miguel de Icaza probably has more experience than anyone building game engines on GC platforms and is very vocally moving toward reference counted languages [1]
Probably much better, given the improvements on the Swift optimizer, but just goes to show "tracing GC" bad, "reference counting GC" good isn't as straighforward as people make it to be, even if they are renowned developers.
It's a cherry picked, out-of-date counter-example. Swift isn't designed for building drivers.
In reality, a lot of Swift apps are delegating to C code. My own app (in development) does a lot of processing, almost none of which happens in Swift, despite the fact I spend the vast majority of my time writing Swift.
Swift an excellent C glue language, which Java isn't. This is why Swift will probably become an excellent game language eventually.
It surely is, according to Apple's own documentation.
> Swift is a successor to the C, C++, and Objective-C languages. It includes low-level primitives such as types, flow control, and operators. It also provides object-oriented features such as classes, protocols, and generics.
If developers have such a big problem glueing C libraries into Java JNI, or Panama, then maybe game industry is not where they are supposed to be, when even Assembly comes to play.
People have 240hz monitors these days, you have a bit over 4ms to render a frame. If that 1ms can be eliminated or amortised over a few frames it's still a big deal, and that's assuming 1ms is the worst case scenario and not the best.
I don’t think you need to work in absolutes here. There are plenty of games that do not need to render at 240hz and are capable of handling pauses up to 1ms. There’s tons of games that are currently written in languages that have larger GC pauses than that.
That has not been my experience. Sure, you don't have any control over the third-party stuff but I haven't seen this issue being widespread in the mainstream third-party libraries I've used e.g. logback, jackson, junit, jedis, pgJDBC etc which are very well known/widely used. The only place I've actually seen proliferation of this was by a contractor, who I suspect, was trying to ensure job security behind impenetrability.
On Objective-C, due to the way the language works, besides ClassFactoryGeneratorFactories, you would need to add all parameter names to the identifier.
I'd have said the same thing 10 years ago (or, I would have if I were comparing 10-year-old Java with modern Rust), but Java these days is actually pretty ergonomic. Rust's borrow checker balances out the ML-style niceties to bring it down to about Java's level for me, depending on the application.
Kotlin is nice indeed. Most of the issues I had with it were in interop with Java code (those pesky platform types, that behave like non-nullable but are nullable: and you are back in the NPE swamp!)
PascalCase has been my favourite since MS-DOS days, I have been through most Borland products, and Microsoft ones, alongside many Pascal influenced languages, thus it feels like home. :)
But yeah it is subjective, also don't have much qualms with other alternatives.
>I realized that what I'd boiled it down to looked an awful lot like Rust code
you're no longer writing idiomatic java at this point - probably with zero object oriented programming. so might as well write it in Rust from the get-go.
If I'd started in Rust I likely wouldn't have finished it at all. Java allowed me to start out just focused on the algorithm with very little regard for memory usage patterns and then refactor towards zero garbage collection. Rust can sort of allow the same thing by just sprinkling everything with clone and/or Rc/Arc, but it's much more in the way than just having a garage collector there automatically.
This seems entirely subjective, most importantly hinging on this part here: "all they wanted is to just make a game".
If you just want to make a game, yes, absolutely just go for Unity, for the same reason why if you just want to ship a CRUD app you should just use an established batteries-included web framework. But indie game developers come in all shapes and some of them don't just want to make a game, some of them actually do enjoy owning every part of the stack. People write their own OSes for fun, is it so hard to believe that people (who aren't you) might enjoy the process of building a game engine?
This is partially true but not the whole picture. A small shift in popular vote across the seven swing states can result in a massive swing in electoral vote. Shifts in safe states don't register in the electoral college but do register in the national popular vote.
I'd be very curious to know how many people here actually knew that Independent Bookstore Day was a thing before reading this headline.
I just checked the two independent bookstores nearest me and neither one of them has any mention of it in their online presence. I've been a frequent customer of independent bookstores for years and never heard about this before. There's no Wikipedia page and Google Trends tells me there's not enough data to even give me a search history for this.
It makes a great headline and I'm sure the people who organize it are annoyed, but this might just be a case of ant meet boot. It's weirdly reassuring for organizers to think that Amazon specifically targeted them, but it seems more likely that they just... didn't even know it was happening.
Blackwing pencils produce a special edition every year that is only available in independent bookstores starting on Independent Bookstore Day. That’s how I knew about it.
The most valuable book in the world isn't the Gutenberg Bible or First Folio or signed Principia. It's the one you need at 2 o'clock in the morning but don't have.
I am aware of it and have been for more than a decade but… I only ever remember sometime after it’s passed. Every year. I’ll spot the leftover merch at my preferred bookstore the next time I’m there and go “Oh, right.”
IIRC it started at about the same time as 'Indie Record Store Day'; both are on Saturdays in April.
I shop at brick-and-mortars for whatever I can, and very much regret those gone missing because of the Great Monopolist. I really valued being able to examine many products before purchase.
Well, now significantly more people know. Use Bookshop.org to buy books instead of Amazon, there's no real downside in my experience, and the quality/integrity of the books I get is much higher.
I just tried the first two titles I thought of on both.
Art of Electronics, Bookshop.org $128.70, Amazon $94.03 (list price $117)
SICP, Bookshop.org $90, Amazon $53.77 (list $75)
Both Amazon titles will be in my hands tomorrow for no additional shipping cost to me. Bookshop suggests that for SICP if I pay $8 extra, I can have it expedited (3-6 days) or for $9 extra can cut that to 3-5 days with priority, though there is a free shipping option available (with no timeframe indicated).
SICP comes up on Amazon when searching for “SICP”; it does not on Bookshop.org, so I need to search by the longer title.
In case “nerd books” is a particularly weak spot, I tried the first book on NYT Best Seller list, Perfect Divorce. Bookshop $28; Amazon $21 and they can have in my hand between 10 and 3 today.
As a consumer, I see at least two hard downsides (cost and speed) and one soft downside (selection/browsing ease).
Amazons worst contribution to the world was leaving people with the expectation that they need to have 2 day shipping for every single item they purchase. The climate impact alone is insane.
In most cases where I choose Amazon for shipping speed reasons the alternative I'm considering is making a special trip to a brick and mortar store by car. I don't know how to do the math to figure out which of those is worse for the climate, but Amazon is definitely not strictly worse.
By focusing on local maxima you’re ignoring that both of the behaviors you’ve described, on a societal scale, are terrible for the environment. Sure, it’s on Amazon or Exxon or whatever other company at the end of the day. But it’s individual human behavior that gives companies the impetus and the air cover to destroy the planet. But like so many other things, humanity, and especially Westerners, won’t learn these lessons until they’re on the doorstep.
Sure, I'm fine to focus on the individual human behavior, but that's a completely different argument than your original post made. To review that comment:
> Amazons worst contribution to the world was leaving people with the expectation that they need to have 2 day shipping for every single item they purchase. The climate impact alone is insane.
Here you're very clearly not discussing "individual human behavior that gives companies the impetus and the air cover to destroy the planet", you're directly blaming Amazon for creating high expectations for delivery times.
Your argumentation here feels like a motte and bailey to me. You attack Amazon for offering 2-day shipping because that's bad for the environment, I point out that the alternative that I would have used in the pre-Amazon world likely wasn't any better, you retreat into a more general attack on large-scale societal problems stemming from individual human behaviors.
I engaged with your bailey and found it lacking. I don't disagree with your motte, but that's not the conversation we were having.
Perhaps Google Street View is in the training set? These companies have basically scraped everything they can, I don't see any reason to believe they'd draw the line at scraping each other, and GSV is a treasure trove of labeled data.
They have been historically [0], it looks like they only changed their model last October [1], a few months after Marc Suidan switched to Backblaze.
TFA even specifies this:
> Instead they hired Marc Suidan who joined from Beachbody (NYSE: BODI) - a publicly traded health and fitness company where he was CFO between May 2022 and August 2024 when the company was operating as a “multi-level marketing” company.
> asked it to look up their URLs and give me a list
Something missing from this conversation is whether we're talking about the raw model or model+tool calls (search). This sounds like tool calls were enabled.
And I do think this is a sign that the current UX of the chatbots is deeply flawed: even on HN we don't seem to interact with the UI components to toggle these features frequently enough that they're the intuitive answer, instead we still talk about model classes as though that makes the biggest difference in accuracy.
Ah, yes you're right - I didn't clarify this in my original comment, but my anecdote was indeed the ChatGPT interface and using its ability to browse the web[#], not expecting it to pull URLs out of its original training data. Thanks for pointing that out.
But the reason I suggested model as a potential difference between me and the person I replied to, rather than ChatGPT interface vs. plain use of model without bells and whistles, is that they had said their trouble was while using ChatGPT, not while using a GPT model over the API or through a different service.
[#] (Technically I didn't, and never do, have the "search" button enabled in the chat interface, but it's able to search/browse the web without that focus being selected.)
Right, but ChatGPT doesn't always automatically use search. I don't know what mechanisms it uses to decide whether to turn that on (maybe free accounts vs paid makes a difference?) but I rarely see it automatically turn on search, it usually tries to respond directly from weights.
And on the flip side, my local Llama 3 8b does a pretty good job at avoiding hallucinations when it's hooked up to search (through Open WebUI). Search vs no-search seems to me to matter far more than model class.
I'm just specific in my prompting, rather than letting it decide whether or not to search.
These models aren't (yet, at least) clever enough to understand what they do or don't know, so if you're not directly telling them when you want them to go and find specific info rather than guess at it you're just asking a mystic with a magic ball.
It doesn't add much to the length of prompts, just a matter of getting in the habit of wording things the right way. For the request I gave as my example a couple of comments above, I wrote "Please search for every one of the Guardian articles whose titles I pasted above and give me a list of URLs for them all." whereas if you write "Please tell me the URLs of these Guardian articles" then it may well act as if it knows them already and return bullshit.
As is the thermostat is a set of brains that can be swapped in and out as time goes on. I just swapped two thermostats in two homes a few weeks back and it took <20 minutes each with no prior knowledge, even though in both cases I had to swap the backplate.
What is the benefit you see of moving the swappable brains closer to the heating system? Doesn't that actually make the whole system more complex because now you have two separate devices where there is currently one?
Another key point is that generally speaking the charge of obstruction of justice requires two ingredients:
1) knowledge of a government proceeding
2) action with intent to interfere with that proceeding
It doesn't especially matter in this case whether ICE was entitled to enter the courtroom because she's not being charged for refusing to allow them entry to the room. The allegation is that upon finding out about their warrant she canceled the hearing and led the defendant out a door that he would not customarily use. Allegedly she did so with the intent of helping him to avoid the officers she knew were there to arrest him.
The government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent (1).
You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US.
The administration is in open violation of supreme court rulings and the law. They have repeatedly shown contempt for the constitution. They have repeatedly assumed their own supremacy. People responsible for enforcement are out of sync with those responsible for due process and legal interpretation. That is true crisis. These words are simple, but the emotional impact should be chilling. When considering the actions of the ICE agents, it seems very reasonable that aiding or abetting them would be an even greater obstruction of justice if not directly aiding and abetting illegal activity.
America is being confronted with a very serious problem. What happens when those responsible for enforcing the law break it or start enforcing "alternative" law? If the police are breaking the law, then there is no law, there is only power. Law is just words on paper without enforcement.
If the idea sounds farfetched, imagine if KKK members deciding to become police officers and how that changes the subjective experience of law by citizens compared to what law says on paper. Imagine they decide to become judges to. How would you expect that to pervert justice?
> You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US.
No I'm not. I'm taking the facts as they're presented by the AP (which is famously not sympathetic to this administration) and saying that nothing in the facts that I'm seeing here in this specific case serves as evidence of a constitutional crisis. This is a straightforward case of obstruction: either she did the things that are alleged or she didn't. If she did, it's obstruction regardless of who is in the White House, and we have no reason to believe at this time that she didn't!
We have better litmus tests, better evidence of wrongdoing by the administration, and better cases to get up in arms about. If we choose our martyrs carelessly we're wasting political capital that could be spent showing those still on the fence the many actual, straightforward cases of overreach.
There was a similar case in Massachusetts many years back. It never went to trial, and legal analysis could go both ways. The bargain struct was it would go into secretive judicial oversight channels.
There is a strong case to be made for obstruction of justice, and an equally strong case to be made about her making an error in her professional capacity as a judge and a government employee (which grants a level of immunity). Police officers, judges, soldiers, etc. make mistakes, but they generally don't go to jail for them because (even corruption aside) everyone makes mistakes. In some jobs, mistakes can and do have severe consequences up to and including people dying. If that led to prison, no one sane would take those jobs.
In any sane universe, it'd be fair to say she screwed up, and then the FBI also screwed up arresting her. I think the FBI screwed up more, since their mistake was premeditated, whereas she was put on the spot.
I do agree with your fundamental point of fatigue. This is not something anyone has a moral high ground to hang their flag on without looking bad.
I usually read coverage from different sides. If you don't realize where she screwed up, look at Fox News. If you don't realize where the FBI screwed up, look at NY Times.
Fox News perspective is that she broke court procedures in order to obstruct federal agents.
Case concluded with some kind of judicial reprimand (not criminal, but administrative). This one is further over the line.
Neutral description to LLM also supports that the judge acted improperly (but LLM didn't think this would lead to a conviction). LLMs aren't great at legal analysis, but are actually pretty good at pattern-matching cases.
One thing helpful to have is a lawful plan. The courthouse might have handled ICE without breaking protocols by having protocols. Protocols should be prima facie neutral, but it's reasonable to expect people in courts, schools, and other places we actually want them to show up to feel safe there. That shouldn't involve sneaking people through back doors or hiding them in jury areas.
Why would I trust that an "entertainment" network like fox news would provide a good legal analysis of how a judge messed up the law? LLMs are worse than this.
ICE has been regularly overstepping its bounds and going after people in ways that impact our legal system's ability to function. This is a terrible precedent to set for no other reason than it impacts the rule of law. If people who are accused of crimes can be disappeared without a trial, just for showing up to court, what incentive is there for anyone to go to court? They are literally ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" that is critical to the rule of law.
If you take away people's ability to get justice within the system, you are making it inevitable that they will go outside the system to get justice.
Ergo, I posted a link to an analogous legal situation in Massachusetts.
We can agree with what the judge did, but it doesn't make it legal.
We can also agree that ICE is breaking laws, but it also doesn't make what the judge did legal. It does help a bit -- in another comment I explained why -- but not enough to change the legal analysis.
As a footnote, modern LLMs aren't worse than Fox News. They have a lot of case law in their training set. They make mistakes so shouldn't yet be used for anything critical, but the legal analysis from Claude or GPT4.1 is a lot better than e.g. 95% of forum posts here.
I don't know that I have the brainpower to analyze 95% of the forum posts on here. And less to determine what I think is "better", so I guess I'll drop the point.
Let's say I beat someone bloody. We can play through several scenarios:
- Someone broke into my house, and I was fearful for my life
- Plain clothes police broke into my house, and I was fearful for my life
Let's say a police officer did so:
- Someone was a gang member, and the police officer did so in self-defense
- Ditto, based on mistaken beliefs
A lot of the protections in place for police and judges are based on the fact that mistakes like these happen. In general, people aren't individually liable for mistakes make in their official capacity as a government employee, unless they cross very extreme lines. They might get fired, but not prosecuted.
There are exceptions (such as handling of classified materials), but as a guideline, if a police officer beats someone bloody, but has good reason to believe they were a criminal and that this was the least force they could use to keep themselves safe, they're protected even if they're wrong.
Im talking about intent: knowingly and intentionally breaking the law.
I understand that honest mistakes happen due to inaccurate information, understand, ect.
- e.g. you thought a cop was a burglar.
These are different from poor and regrettable choices, also sometimes referred to as "mistakes".
- I beat my wife because I caught them cheating.
There may be an interpretation of this situation where judge did not understand their situation and actions, but I don't find it very probable. It seems clear that they were trying to help the target of a legal warrant evade law enforcement apprehension, and knew exactly what they were doing.
I find it entirely probable that the judge didn't know or understand, in the moment, their situation and the implications of their actions. Indeed, I will go one step further. If ICE does illegal things 100 times, then it's reasonable to expect an unreasonable reaction maybe 10% of the time.
If I were a judge, and someone came into court with an "administrative warrant," I might not want them disturbing my courthouse either. I might want parties to feel safe there, and be concerned about miscarriages of justice if parties are scared to show up.
I find it entirely probable that the judge didn't know or understand, in the moment, their situation and the implications of their actions. Indeed, I will go one step further. If ICE does illegal things 100 times, then it's reasonable to expect an unreasonable reaction maybe 10% of the time.
If I were a judge, and someone came into court with an "administrative warrant," I might not want them disturbing my courthouse either. I might want parties to feel safe there, and be concerned about miscarriages of justice if parties are scared to show up.
The trick here is to have policies ahead-of-time, and especially, to let judges know about this sort of thing ahead-of-time. If police show up at my door, I might make a mistake. If they let me know ahead of time, and I have time to think, I hopefully won't.
Judge thinks ICE is illegally abducting people. The ideas are laid out pretty clearly in the grandparent comment. It’s not clear what is right and wrong because ICE is skipping due process and rendering people to foreign prisons.
It's not about the standard of guilt in court, it's about political capital and effective rhetoric.
There are so many cases where the Trump administration has flagrantly violated rule of law. Why would we waste time fighting them in the court of public opinion on a case where things currently appear to be open and shut in the other direction?
When those on the fence see us getting up in arms about something where to all appearances the "victim" actually did break the law and is being given due process, we lose credibility. If we instead save our breath for the many many cases that actually have compelling facts, it's harder for them to tune us out.
In ux design this is called alert fatigue, and it matters in politics too.
> When those on the fence see us getting up in arms about something where to all appearances the "victim" actually did break the law and is being given due process, we lose credibility. If we instead save our breath for the many many cases that actually have compelling facts, it's harder for them to tune us out.
those cases are the least important to the defense of due process rights. but i'll concede that you're likely correct at the level of the broader populace given that our civic education is an embarrassment and has been for decades.
> America is being confronted with a very serious problem. What happens when those responsible for enforcing the law break it or start enforcing "alternative" law? If the police are breaking the law, then there is no law, there is only power. Law is just words on paper without enforcement.
The world has a concept that fits that description and it is a civil war. People pick up arms, a lot of people get killed, several generations end up in cycles of violence.
That is what happen when there is no law, only power, and people act on it.
> The administration is in open violation of supreme court rulings and the law.
But is this one of those situations? The problem I think people get stuck in the muck about is all these situations run together and they start assuming facts from one case apply to another.
Two things can be true— The Trump administration be in defiance of some other ruling related to immigration/deportation as well as being perfectly within the law for this particular case.
Then don't fight these battles where they are in the right, fight them where they are in the wrong. Taking this fight here just gives all the advantage to Trump and his regime, fight them where it is easy to win.
Salami slicing is the first page of the present day authoritarian play book.
Here's an excerpt from They Thought They Were Free, a book about the mindset of ordinary Germans experiencing the rise of the Nazi Government:
Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk alone; you don’t want to “go out of your way to make trouble.” Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, “everyone” is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”
And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.
...
But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds of thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions, would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the “German Firm” stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all of the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
I’m confused, is this happening little by little, or gigantic bursts.
Trump just started his term, but it doesn’t seem to be the incremental approach allegedly used by the Nazis.
He is, to quote his former advisor, “flooding the zone with sh*t.” A gigantic burst of terribleness, doing a thousand things at once, leaving everyone disoriented.
That’s quite different from the “every day a little worse approach.”
I suspect the next four years will be gigantic bursts of terribleness, followed by long periods of relief it wasn’t “as bad as it seeemed at first.”
Infighting is how liberalism loses. While we sit and deliberate on whether this is the slice that merits actions, they are making plans to arrest more judges.
The point of that excerpt is that there is not and likely will never be one single unifying objectionable action that provokes people into acting and we will slow walk our way into atrocity through inaction.
The argument being made is that it will continually get worse every single day. Every action will slowly become more egregious. A judge arrested politically, but for cause, today will be a judge arrested without cause tomorrow, but we will have adapted to see judges being arrested for blatantly political reasons as a new norm.
The facts and nuance will change faster than we can adapt and while we pontificate on whether this is the one that's worth it, the next bad thing will have already happened. More power will have been consolidated.
Taking in the truth requires action, so anything that lets people stay in denial or bury their heads is clung to in order to protect mental health. Eventually it will be too late, and you will wonder when you should have acted knowing you are no longer able to.
The most important part is to get the people on your side, that is how you win. If an action results in less support for your side then you shouldn't do it if you want to win, it hurts you.
So all I am saying, stop hurting yourself, that only help your enemies. It is not me hurting you, it is you hurting you. This was how the Democrats lost the election, it wasn't Trump that won it was Democrats that lost it by hurting themselves over and over.
The sum of those small slices is already great. There is no logical reason to react only to each individual event and not the sum of them or better yet the sum or what has been openly planned.
In the face of obvious fascism those who would be "turned against" their fellows by dint of honest and justified alarm are already "against" them now. They can only be opposed not convinced. They are either honest villains or live virtually entirely in their fantasy wholly disconnected from reality.
Just wait until you get to the part of the They Thought They Were Free where it mentions over-reacting. That strategy doesn't work.
There is no moment of egregious violation. It never comes. Even when the state is clearly totalitarian there were Germans holding out hope that Germany would lose the war. As if that was their final straw.
The salami is purposefully sliced thin enough that one slice on it's own will never provoke enough outrage. How do you hope to oppose that?
Be clear what over reactions are you talking about in the context of rise of the nazis and what overreactions do you see here?
Building a personal army and pissing in the woods whilst you drill and prepare for civil war 2.0 electric boogaloo would be an overreaction, this is a strongly worded letter against arresting judges. This is the absolute minimum anyone could possibly be expected to do.
The point was that conceding to the over-reactive label isn't a viable strategy The people of 1955 - just 10 years after WW2 - realized that taking a stand, even against a salami was the better strategy than avoiding the over-reactive label.
Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time?
This law and the banning of the other political parties was the egregious step that people should have rebelled and taken up arms against, you can't say this was just a tiny "salami slice":
You want to have all the political capital left when that law happens, instead of wasting it defending rotten scraps. Wasting so much energy and political capacity on scraps means there is no energy left when the big things hits, that is exactly where your current strategy is taking you.
> Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time?
People killed Nazis before they came to power, they weren't using legal or nice strategies as defense back then either. That was the wrong way, it only increased support for the Nazis.
Let me summarize what I'm hearing and you tell me where I get it wrong.
We should hold back, let the authoritarians do their thing, until there is critical support against an authoritarian power grab and then act when we have overwhelming strength?
When fighting back helps your enemy, then yes then you shouldn't do it. That is pretty obvious.
Don't fight back when the terrain favors your enemy even if it is your land, you fight where you can win. War isn't won by who holds the most land, but by who defeats the enemy troops. You need to build support from the people, not do things that lose support.
There's a metarule to the rule that you're discussing.
"Don't struggle -- only within the ground rules that the people you're struggling against have laid down."
If fighting back helps your enemy, don't just pause and not fight back. Change the state of the system so that the most effective thing -- fighting back -- is viable.
Get inside their OODA loop. Change the rhythm of things so that it suits your needs and not theirs.
Can you sketch out the type of person who see fighting back over these things as an over-reaction? Who are they? I've never met one, so it's hard to imagine they're real.
Yes, as long as they hate fascism more than they hate you they will help you defeat fascism when the time comes. But if you have built up enough resentment over the years then they will pick fascism over you.
Got it. So they're playing "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting," card and they've convinced us that by holding back we'll have a chance to meet them when the time comes, but by then it's too late. They'll have made the possibility of resistance meaningless.
If you haven't previously, I recommend spending time consuming right leaning media.
I find that both right and left media tend to say the same things about the other side. It's a bit wild when you first realize it, when you hear your exact arguments about the others being said by the others about you.
Finding common ground is always the best path. Determine where the actual differences are beyond the meme propaganda, and you may be able to better connect with other world views.
I find that both right and left media tend to say the same things about the other side
The left tends to be more likely to be correct, however (speaking as someone who identifies with neither.) This isn't a matter of opinion; polls have repeatedly found that Fox News viewers, for example, are less well-informed than people who consume no news at all.
"BSAB" thinking doesn't work. No good reasons remain for pretending that it does. One side is objectively and consistently bad for America... but they are better at herding dull-witted people to the polls, so they are winning.
It used to feel smart:
"Both sides are bad."
It signaled discernment, wisdom, immunity to empty tribalism.
We thought neutrality made us wiser.
But detachment isn’t a moral stance; it’s a luxury belief from a world where the system mostly worked.
Today, one side has abandoned the rules entirely. Neutrality isn't wisdom anymore. Neutrality is abdication.
"Both sides are bad" was an optimization for an environment that doesn't exist anymore: shared facts, rational actors, institutional guardrails.
We live in the failure modes now: information war, procedural collapse, manufactured resentment.
We aren't floating above it.
We’re being crushed by it.
And the longer we cling to detached cleverness, the more we surrender to people who act without waiting for certainty.
Yes, action without clarity is dangerous.
Yes, there are wrong moves that make collapse worse.
But paralysis, waiting, hoping, optimizing forever for a world that already ended kills just the same.
It only feels cleaner on the way down.
They already moved.
We're still here, swirling the last drops of neutrality in our glasses, mistaking abdication for wisdom, even as the last undergirders of the state give way beneath us.
The left seems to be more correct on things, but at the same time they run wild campaigns like the butchering of private property: george floyd riots, telsa defacement.
I also see lunacy in terms of economic policies, especially those pushed by progressives like AOC. The party seems a bit too socialist for me, though I appreciate the push for individual liberties when they embrace more classically liberal positions.
at the same time they run wild campaigns like the butchering of private property
January 6, and Trump's subsequent pardon of the rioters, cost you every last drop of the moral authority you need in order to say things like that.
Yes, there is lunacy on the left that does not sleep... but at least their breed of idiot means well. Historically, when you pit the misguided motivations of an AOC against the active malevolence of a Trump, the latter usually beat the former handily. And as usual, when elephants fight, the mice get trampled.
Really big conditional. A huge amount love fascism, in terms of sharing the same values and desires. How can they resist the allure: "we'll give you everything you want, and you won't even have to work for it by convincing others you're right, because we'll crush those who oppose us".
As long as they believe they'll always be the ones in power (see the crushing dissent part), they see that as a dream come true. Just look at how conservatives have openly opposed due process and judicial checks and balances over the executive branch lately*.
* – Which country am I discussing here? Could be a few lately!
By the time that happens, everyone who understands what is happening will have already left because people like you want to wait until power is consolidated to such an extent that it can't be reasonably fought.
That law was enacted after they thought they had the power to do it, not before as with every salami slicing action. If they think there will be a response, they back off while they continue to slice.
You talk about political capital like it's in a bank account just waiting to be spent, while political capital is being lost through inaction itself, especially in people seeing that it's more rational to run than fight.
Schumer's strategy to wait for 40% unpopularity didn't save any political capital, just the opposite, it demoralized everyone on his side, destroyed resolve, and shattered solidarity.
Intent is already declared, time passes which allows power to consolidate. When would it be easier to act, after several months of power consolidation?
It's not a difference in goal, it's a difference in level of power consolidation. They would already have enacted that law if they thought they had the power to do it, the fact that they haven't means that they think it would cause a response they couldn't win against. As soon as they think they can win, they will do it.
So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later.
Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months?
If I am the country with 10,000 citizens and I see my neighbor is producing bullets at maximum capacity, should I wait until I definitely know they will invade to mobilize my own manufacturing base/prepare my citizens for a potential invasion? What if they had already spent 2,000 bullets taking a 2,000 person state?
> So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later.
What do you mean "act now"? Do you want more people to go out and key tesla cars? You think that is going to make fascism less likely? No, stuff like that only strengthens fascism.
People fought Hitler at every turn in his rise to power often using less than legal means and violence, that only made him stronger.
> Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months?
Except that country is selling you the bullets, and they say they need to produce more bullets to win even though you just buy them.
My advice: Stop selling bullets to your enemy.
Your response: But they have so many bullets, we need to make more to defend ourselves, and of course we can't stop selling bullets since that will crash our market!
Like, each of those positions are fine in themselves, but the combination is devastating.
That isn't bad faith, I believe you want to do good, I am just explaining the consequences of your actions. Trump currently has higher support than at almost any time before, that is thanks to people like you who over react and fight even the reasonable things the Trump administration does with fervor.
If I didn't believe in you then I wouldn't explain these things, I do it since I think things can change for the better.
It is still higher than at almost any point in his first term, that was after years of these things and all it resulted in is higher approval than before.
So we can conclude that all that disparagement of Trump increases his support, or why else would it increase so much? The main thing that decreases support for Trump is when Trump does things like the tariffs, or all the insane stuff he has done so far.
Approval dropping a bit due to Trump doing insane things isn't thanks to Democrats, that is his own fault. You want them to shoot them in the foot like that, like press hard on the insane tariffs etc, don't press on these issues where it is easy to defend him.
> It is still higher than at almost any point in his first term,
Depending on which poll series you look at, it's at or a little below his support an equal time into his first term and either following a similar trajectory or dropping faster. It's true that it is still above most of the rest of his first term because his support dropped throughout the term, and it is a quarter of a year into a four year term.
> So we can conclude that all that disparagement of Trump increases his support, or why else would it increase so much?
It increased, insofar as it did, only when he was out of office. What seems to increase his support is him not having his hands on the levers of power.
>>imagine if KKK members deciding to become police officers and how that changes the subjective experience of law by citizens compared to what law says on paper.
Yes, I agree. Setting aside the macro issues of A) The current admin's immigration policies, and B) The current admin's oddly extreme strategies involving chasing down undocumented persons in unusual places for immediate deportation. From a standpoint of only legal precedent and the ordinance this judge is charged under, the particular circumstances of this case don't seem to make it a good fit for a litmus test case or a PR 'hero' case to highlight opposition to the admin's policies. At least, there are many other cases which appear to be far better suited for those purposes.
To me, part of the issue here is that judges are "officers of the court" with certain implied duties about furthering the proper administration of justice. If the defendant had been appearing in her courtroom that day in a matter regarding his immigration status, the judge's actions could arguably be in support of the judicial process (ie if the defendant is deported before she can rule on his deportability that impedes the administration of justice). But since he was appearing on an unrelated domestic violence case, that argument can't apply here. Hence, this appears to be, at best, a messy, unclear case and, at worst, pretty open and shut.
Separately, ICE choosing to arrest the judge at the courthouse instead of doing a pre-arranged surrender and booking, appears to be aggressive showboating that's unfortunate and, generally, a bad look for the U.S. government, U.S. judicial system AND the current administration.
Technically all the government has to do is get her on a plane to El Salvador in the middle of the night.
Which is to say, this arm of government has not followed any semblance of due process so far, and is currently defying a unanimous order of the Supreme Court even in a Republican supermajority, pretending due process is something they "have to" do is very much ignoring where we are.
Notably the examples on the page you linked appear to involve illegal acts (tampering, threatening, etc). Letting someone out a different door (neither party is trespassing) doesn't seem to rise to that bar.
Just as I'm not obligated to call the police to report something I don't see how I can be obligated to force my guest to use a particular door for the convenience of the police. It isn't my responsibility to actively facilitate their actions.
It would never have occurred to me (and doesn't seem reasonable) that obstruction could involve indirect (relative to the government process) actions.
I could understand "aiding and abetting" if I was actively facilitating the commission of a crime but I don't want to live in a country where mere avoidance is considered a crime. "Arrested for resisting arrest" gets mocked for good reason.
The government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent
She is brave. I suspect we will look back on this one day if it goes that far. Even if you are staunch anti-immigration advocate, I would ask everyone to do the mental exercise of how one should proceed if the law or the enforcement of it is inhumane. The immigrant in question went for a non-immigration hearing, so this judge was brave (that's the only way I'll describe it). Few of us would have the courage to do that even for clear cut injustices, we'd sit back and go "well what can I do?". Bear witness, this is how.
Frontpage of /r/law:
ICE Can Now Enter Your Home Without a Warrant to Look for Migrants, DOJ Memo Says
The headline did not appear inaccurate to me, but I'll confess I'm not as great of a reader as some of you. The article seems to indicate the headline is correct from my reading comprehension. I always scored well on reading comprehension tests so I don't know, did I get dumber? Someone else read the article and settle it between me and the GP so we can get a conclusive answer.
With that said, do you believe the Patriot Act was used only for terrorists?
Gangs and Terrorists are bad, but I believe we as a country went through this once already and you cannot create these precedents because they stick around. They're literally reusing Guantanamo Bay.
> government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent (1)
Dude used a different door so the FBI arrests a judge in a court room? At that point we should be charging ICE agents with kidnapping.
Almost every single country on earth? Illegal immigrants are hunted down and deported everywhere and it is illegal to hide illegal immigrants.
USA is an exception here where local authorities doesn't govern immigration laws so you get "sanctuary cities", in almost every other country this sort of thing doesn't happen so illegal immigrants just get arrested and deported.
> many minorities otherwise here legally are also being persecuted
Can you name one minority group that is being persecuted and have to hide? If you mean people critical of Trump then that is not a minority group, at least not in this context. It is wrong to deport them for that, but that isn't the same as "hunting down minorities".
This is not at all true. Some percentage of AI generated images might have become a contract, but that percentage is vanishingly small.
Most AI generated images you see out there are just shared casually between friends. Another sizable chunk are useless filler in a casual blog post and the author would otherwise have gone without, used public domain images, or illegally copied an image.
A very very small percentage of them are used in a specific subset of SEO posts whose authors actually might have cared enough to get a professional illustrator a few years ago but don't care enough to avoid AI artifacts today. That sliver probably represents most of the work that used to exist for a freelance illustrator, but it's a vanishingly small percentage of AI generated images.
reply