Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | throw10920's commentslogin

Have you considered buying a dashcam? Then in case you do actually hit them because you weren't able to break fast enough, it's very likely that insurance will end up siding with you, as opposed to the usual outcome where you're the rear-ender.

There's constant examples of the trend that GP pointed out happening all the time. I'm pretty surprised that someone with so much internet activity hasn't noticed.

For instance, just a few days ago, a very popular TikTokker doxxed a father and asked his followers to report that father to CPS to try to get his kids taken away for expressing an opinion that they didn't like. That opinion? That children can't consent. The TikTokker isn't in jail, and he didn't lose his platform or otherwise suffer any consequences, because even though he did an extremely evil thing, his opinion was aligned with the "politically correct", and the father's opinion was "politically incorrect".

There are many, many instances of this happening - I've both seen them online, and witnessed it personally.

If you haven't seen it yourself, you're probably in a social bubble.


I must be in a social bubble then. (Def don't Tik Tok.)

I dox myself by using my real name, talk about where I live, my age, etc. — all the time. I like to think that also keeps me honest — keeps me from not posting something I wouldn't say to someone's face.


I guess the difference is under law what you are and aren't allowed to do online.

Here in Australia since 2024 it is illegal to dox someone online and it is considered a criminal offence. So that father would have the ability to press charges against that Tiktoker. Might be challenging if one of them is outside of said country law.


"Children can't consent" isn't a politically incorrect opinion. It's very much politically correct. This feels like a lede was buried, and quiet deep!

It's probably what they are consenting to that triggered the doxxing

Children can't consent to what, exactly?

> If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers).

I disagree, on two fronts.

First, I think that the underlying root cause is a level lower - it's the fact that so much content on the web is funded via privacy-invasive and malware-laden advertisements, rather than direct payment.

Second, there are multiple valid things that you can do - you don't just have to pick one.

You can work on Manifest V2 bypasses and you can boycott Chrom{e,ium} and you can contact your representatives to ask them to craft regulation against this and you can promote/use financial models where you pay for stuff with money instead of eyeballs. All are useful! (especially because regulation is incredibly difficult to get write and takes a long time to build political will, draft, pass, and implement)


I 100% agree with the principle, but (regrettably) in practice you can't do this in a lot of places where the community is critical (which isn't a bad thing by itself) but doesn't call out/downvote/moderate bad criticism (which is bad).

I can't count the number of times on HN that I've seen responses to posts that took advantage of the poster not writing defensively to emotionally attack them in ways that absolutely break the HN guidelines, and weren't flagged or downvoted. And on other sites, like Reddit, it's just the norm.

The defensive writing will continue until morals improve.


> It's absurd that such laws would need to be passed 50 times for all US citizens to benefit from it. It should be done at the federal level.

You're missing an important reason why regulating at the state level first is a good idea: because it allows you to test the implementation with a small fraction of citizens before rolling it out.

Yes, basically everyone wants click-to-cancel, but actually writing good regulation is hard. Ideally, what would happen is that a few states would try things in different ways, and then when they figure out the best implementation, the federal government would pick up that implementation.


The problem here is that it’s testing the implementation details more than the generalized idea.

It’s as if I wrote code to process data in a certain way, write it for an old mainframe and to process a specific set of data. There’s not a ton of generalizability to other data, and how you implement the code on other systems will impact the outcome. Especially because there are few objective measurements to evaluate the success of legislation


> The problem here is that it’s testing the implementation details more than the generalized idea.

Well, the problem is that you can't test the generalized idea either. Even if a law is passed at the federal level, you're still only testing a specific implementation of a regulatory concept you want to implement.

Having a bunch of entities (the states) try implementing the same concept in different ways allows you to explore more of the solution space than if you only have a single entity (the federal government) do it uniformly upfront!


That’s fair, that is a good point.

But still in many cases I think a less-than-perfect law is better than none.


I agree!

But it's actually easier to get a law passed at the state level than at the federal level. As you can see, congress has a hard time passing meaningful laws right now, and from people I know who work there, it's largely because there's too much stuff for them to do - they simply don't have enough bandwidth. At the state level, you have fewer signatures you need to get on petitions, you represent a larger fraction of the constituents, your representatives are more sensitive to your demands, etc.

From a greedy/selfish perspective, having the states prototype laws before the federal government effectively offloads some of the regulatory burden onto the states.

And, when the law works, the other states tends to notice - you get political momentum.


In a twist that has multiple levels of irony, I've heard that there's protests going on in Mexico right now about this, with the wealthy immigrants/tourists being from the US.

I feel like Portugal had the same problem with wealthy foreigners purchasing all the real estate.

Thank you for linking the actual legal text! (if only it weren't super hard to read due to hard wrapping - one of the reasons why HTML is generally better than PDF)

I hope the FTC tries to re-submit the rule while following procedure - click-to-cancel is really good for consumers... but not enough to justify trying to break laws to pass it.

You realize the current FTC is not the same FTC that did this? There’s no way this FTC does anything in favor of consumers

What are examples of those semantics? I'm guessing rebindable functions (and a single function/variable namespace), eval(), and object members available as a dict.

Some examples that come to mind: You can inspect the call stack, and get a list of local variables of your callers. You can assign to object.__class__ to dynamically change an existing object's class at runtime. You can overwrite every operator, including obj.field access, dynamically at runtime (including changing an existing class)

a long time ago, there was Parrot and a bet with Guido https://justatheory.com/2004/08/oscon-notes/

This is a wild claim. Do you have any evidence at all for this?

Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

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

Search: