Impressive, glad the alarm chain works. And from what you say the warning message is also clear and understandable. Not tech or geology jargon that people don't understand and then take no or the wrong actions.
This you? What made your stance on this subject change?
fuzzbazz 10 months ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
How can you even have democracy without freedom of speech?
How can you freely choose who to vote without free exchange of information?
OP did not at all imply they felt that way, rather was implying an argument on behalf of the drafters.
God, this forum is becoming more like reddit every day with folks ignoring commenting rules and assuming bad faith. (of which ,I am doing myself right now.)
> There are times you can politicize an issue. A flood that killed a bunch of young kids at a summer camp is not one of them.
This is the same argument that is made after every single school shooting in America. How dare we seek solutions after tragedy. Lets just stick to thoughts and prayers
If the full summary of your recommendation on problems like private property and weather prediction is “you should have voted for my team”, youre not actually participating in solving the issue.
Did we understaff? Did we cause alarm fatigue? Can the states systems be upgraded? A true investigation into the issue would be great. This is not that.
AFAIK, there are several reasons for the increase in autism diagnosis, but a few key ones people forgot about...
1. DSM IV, the old way, had a separate diagnosis for many autism related disorders. Think Asperger's, pdd-nos, etc. When DSM V was released, many separate diagnosis were umbrella'd in to autism spectrum disorder. The old disorders simply disappeared and are not made any more.
2. Getting an Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis opens up a huge amount of insurance and educational leeway. You go from qualifying for general therapy to intensive support therapy, classes, and more. At school, with the diagnosis, you get expanded help for kids that are really struggling. So there is a strong will created by parents and educators to try to get that diagnosis. When you are struggling, this extra support can really help everyone, the kids, teachers, and parents.
These two points alone may account for a lot of the increases we are seeing. I don't know why they are never mentioned by media and the skeptics.
New trade routes and spinning up local production will take time (likely longer five years) so the consumer will pay a price.
The main issue I see is that in 3.5 or possible 1.5 years, a new president ( or laws passed through congress ) will just vacate all Trump executive orders, tariffs in included. So that $100 million you invested in a new factory that is 3/4 built? Sorry, tariffs are gona and now you are out $100 mil. Why would any corp assume that risk?
> Trade deficit is effectively a migration of capital inflow, so tariffs should reduce not increase investments.
That seems backwards. A trade deficit (more goods coming into the country) should be balanced by a capital outflow (money leaving the country). We've sustained that for decades by printing more money and sending it around the world.
Some people think that's a good deal, because we get real stuff in exchange for money we create for nothing. But what will have left when other countries no longer want our money?
Edit: As the comment below points out, I should technically ask what happens when they no longer want U.S. government debt?
Money in this context is just a representation of value. You presume the money for foreign goods is leaving the USA when we import the goods, but that is actually not necessarily the case.
Make no mistake, these countries are getting something in return for the extra goods and services they give to us. It is not for free. One of the big things trade to China to make up this deficit is an investment in the US government (treasury notes) or assets. That is, they are taking the dollars they get and then parking it in the US as investment . The deficit is they're choosing us to invest in rather than themselves!
>The U.S. trade balance has been in a deficit position since the 1970s. This means that the
total value of imported goods has been greater than the total value of exported goods.
This means the U.S. is a “debtor” nation, running a merchandise trade deficit. However,
the merchandise trade deficit refers only to imports and exports of goods and services. It
shows that imports are greater than exports, hence the “deficit.” But, think about it for a
minute, why does the world keep giving us goods, without getting goods from us in
return? Is this a good deal or what? Well, clearly, this can’t be the whole story.
>What is happening is that the people from whom we buy goods abroad are taking our
dollars investing in the U.S. economy. They may buy U.S. government debt (securities
issued by the U.S. government to finance past federal budget deficits) or other assets in
the U.S. For example, they may invest in U.S. companies.
If an investment is profitable with 30% tariffs, but not at 10% tariffs, the risk of changing policy means your profitable investment has a risk of being unprofitable, and thus you are less likely to invest in it.
> The main issue I see is that in 3.5 or possible 1.5 years, a new president ( or laws passed through congress ) will just vacate all Trump executive orders, tariffs in included. So that $100 million you invested in a new factory that is 3/4 built? Sorry, tariffs are gone and now you are out $100 mil. Why would any corp assume that risk?
If I were to be as generous as possible, I might say that's why Trump is being so chaotic with the tariffs? If you turn everyone against us and no one is willing to trade with us, it may force people's hand to build locally and then 4 years from now, there's still no appetite to resume our normal trade patterns.
Trump is ha-ha-only-serious joking about a third term and has said that, if people voted for him, they'd never have to vote again. So... in case of Emperor Trump, the tariffs wouldn't go away. I wonder if somebody is already working out how to tell "the economy" about that without being too obvious about the seriousness of his third term plan.
If Biden is anything to go by, it's not really a given that a Dem president will necessarily undo Trump's international policy. He didn't get back in the negotiation room with Iran, he didn't back out of the Afghanistan pull-out, he made zero progress on climate change, he didn't undo much of the immigration policy changes that occurred... One of the few things that he DID pull back on were Trump's first-term tariffs (EDIT: Wait, he did pull back, didn't in he? I thought he did, I might be wrong.), and come 2028, if there's been substantial domestic change taken with the assumption of their longevity, I personally don't trust Democrats to back off on them.
I wonder if you shared that opinion when it was on the way up as well. Because the P/E ratio has been lopsided compared to other auto makers for years.
Or, are you perhaps skewed in your own opinion due to your near constant support of the american conservatives in your previous posts and comments.
People refresh all day here and often on the new post and new and comment feeds specifically, and many earnest users who take pride in maintaining a certain character to the site are quick to flag anything that's likely to devolve into noise and vitriol, like most political topics.
It can be frustrating to have them do that when you really wish you could to commiserate, explore, or debate the community on these topics, but bots aren't at play. Many people just don't see this as the right place to have these discussions and work to keep it that way.
While almost all of are political in some way, and most of us are tracking all these same events, we don't all want talk about it here.
I really wish people, widely, would stop blaming bots. I am sure there are plenty of bots doing lots of things, but by immediately attributing this behavior to bots I think we detach ourselves from a fundamental fact: there are a lot of US citizens that are so far drowning in propaganda that they actually manufacture reason for much of this insanity without much provocation or incentive beyond it being done by their tribe.
Yea, I got tired of people attempting to make comments like this and wrote a script to quickly analyze past comment history to see if they were truly being honest.
You have consistently and reliably posted your political views here. Please don't try to pretend that you hate the political discourse now that people are critical of your guy.
You should learn more about the political landscape. It will clear up a lot of these questions. And I mean that sincerely. If you see everything as left or right it’s quite confusing.
There's this growing sentiment among some Republicans that Trump isn't conservative enough and that Democrats, a centrist party relative to most developed nations, are left wing lunatics/socialists/communists.
I hope that we were beyond first-past-the-post voting. I would like to see a ranked-choice or star voting to determine whether something should be flagged.
I would also appreciate using tools like this AI system[1] to identify and limit hate-filled posts. It's only accurate about 90% of the time, but that's an acceptable loss for me, even if my speech gets filtered.
"Political" is not a binary true or false. There are plenty of on-topic articles here that merely have "political overlap" as dang[1] puts it, and they should not be flagged. To be fair, this article seems to be more towards the "purely political" side of the spectrum and was probably correctly flagged.
I think this rule is generally followed by HN's users, but for whatever reason, anything that touches "Elon" or "DOGE" always gets insta-buried, whether or not it's tech-related, whether or not it's interesting, whether or not it's worth discussing.
I don't think it's automated bots, but there is most certainly an online Elon Defense Brigade of real users out there trying to bury anything negative about the guy. I don't know what would make someone devote so much time to defending the honor of a billionaire. It's almost religious.
30% of the US aid goes to ukraine for immediate local purposes, think humanitarian and and economic relief, the other 70% goes to us defense manufacturers, directly supporting american companies who then send their stock of weapons to ukraine. This 70% that goes directly to US companies is counted in the total aid provided
I can think of a hundred things we could have US defense contractors make instead. And it's surprising how quickly Democrats have begun worshiping the Military Industrial Complex. As recently as Bush, it was the boogeyman. Now I'm supposed to support shoveling money into it to burn? Why don't we spend $100B on having American workers build high-speed rail instead, or anything else more useful than drawing out an unwinnable conflict? All that would be purchased with this money is a lot more dead Ukrainians before it's over.
There is currently an air raid siren in Kyiv. Because of US Kyiv has better air defense, so in case of rocket strike some would be intercepted. There are benefits to US aid.
It's clearly not unwinnable. Russia is doing serious structural damage to its economy and can't get enough Russians to fight, so they're pulling North Koreans in (who think they're going to fight South Korea). At worst (for Ukraine), Russia is piling up dead bodies at a 2:1 ratio, and in the process Ukraine is now the world's leading drone combatant. And all the whining that Trump has done about Europe not pulling its weight, is going to be answered with Europe now understanding that US aid is over and they're all publicly pledging to step in.
And the US has more than enough money to build high speed rail and continue or double its support for Ukraine. Available money isn't the problem.
The US has cleared out vast reserves of older armaments that they no longer have to pay to warehouse or retire safely. Besides most of that aid money going into American pockets, the inventory has been cycled for America's benefit.
If the US had chosen to be a steadfast ally and actually help Ukraine win, it could have reaped the same rewards it received after WW2 once Ukraine won: rebuild it as a bastion of capitalism and democracy and let the rising tide lift all boats, especially the leader's. Instead, you're walking away, destroying NATO and transatlantic co-operation in the process. And by doing so, you're making Europe independent of the US, when dependency on the US was the cornerstone of 80 years of peace in Europe as well as a strong world economy. Congratulations on kissing goodbye the very thing that's made America so wealthy and strong for the last 80 years.
This is severe whataboutism. I'm not a fan of the MIC, and much money given to it could be better spent on other things.
But the reality is that money poured into the MIC to replace equipment we sent to Ukraine is not money that leaves the US economy, and it is absolutely essential to understand that when discussing the "cost" of this war to America.
