If you mean we created an environment where people could come and find success and live their lives, and we perhaps weren’t as strict as we could’ve been in some situations… I don’t think that violently kidnapping people off the streets, without showing badges, in unmarked vehicles, masked, etc is a punishment that fits the crime.
Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity
"due process" means "This is the process the government must follow" and is not shorthand for "You are allowed to appeal to the USSC". I think most people would be surprised how little process is owed to someone who is not legally present in the United States and how few opportunities there are for appeal.
These people are shuffled around the country without their lawyers being informed and are “lost” in the system for long stretches of time without representation.
This means they can’t prove if they are here legally or not.
Furthermore, the administration wants to end birthright citizenship, which they will no doubt aim to make retroactive. Not being able to prove citizenship or status means (according to you) that you have no rights. anybody born here or otherwise will subject to this process and unable to prove their citizenship.
And again, the treatment these people are receiving is absolutely heinous, especially considering that they’ve not been charged with or found guilty of a violent crime.
I’m not sure about specific rules around who can appeal to the Supreme Court, nor am I sure why such an appeal has been mentioned… but once people on American soil lose basic rights we all do. All it takes is being ACCUSED of the right non-violent crime and then you have absolutely zero rights and are treated like an animal.
We should be better than this even if the law doesn’t say we have to be (which it does). If folks are here illegally and subject to deportation, prove it. Don’t hide them in the system and deprive them of representation.
I’m not sure what an undocumented (or documented but missing some arbitrary checkbox) person did to you but I can assure you it doesn’t mean that person or others should be subjected to this treatment in a civilized society.
The 14th amendment: "prohibits states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""
The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.
Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.
I always forget websters definition of punishment is “violent masked unidentified government sanctioned gangs roaming the streets and violently apprehending people”
That’s such a great point. Deportation is supposed to be incredibly violent because it’s a punishment. I’m jotting that one down since it’s certainly not written in any laws. I don’t wanna forget.
You're confusing natural rights and civil rights. And backpedaling from "they're not being deprived of these rights" to "they deserve it". They may deserve it but you don't know that without- (please finish the sentence)
Follow the law. I'm not asking for more process than the law specifies, but ICE has to actually follow the law. If they won't, then they no longer have legal authority to do what they're doing, and they're just another gang.
> "due process" means "This is the process the government must follow" and is not shorthand for "You are allowed to appeal to the USSC".
Questions of due process, as due process is a federal Constitutional guarantee, are controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, as such, are within the judicial power defined in Article III of the Constitution.
Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
> Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue.
I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0]
I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world.
Obama’s deportation numbers were juiced compared to post-2015 numbers because there was a change in the definition of that term.
Obama’s deportations were mostly border patrol apprehending and pushing people back across the border, not ICE being super efficient at rounding up people in the interior of the country.
A good primer on immigration enforcement before and during the Obama admin:
> Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Obama prioritized deportation of people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals after they got their day in court. He did not call Mexicans rapists. The admin did not arrest US citizens. Being arrested by the feds even if you did not break the law is a much worse ordeal.
> Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
The line for legal citizenship does not move faster if you deport more people.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
When masked men come out of a van and kidnap you off the streets in broad daylight, tell me if it's an emotional issue or not.
> Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
Were you always a fascist sympathizer or did Trump stoke those feelings in you?
I think you may be looking past the point they are making. Rideshare was better, it was cheaper, it was nice. Its no longer better, cheaper, or nicer. They're doing fine for sure.... like the AI companies will be doing fine... but once the prices go up the ROI for AI agents won't be as appealing to every company. It may raise the bar higher for new companies/products rather than lower it.
not every company is FANG. there are tens of thousands of companies operating at sub trillion dollar valuations which absolutely positively do this. FANG (or even "big tech") is far too narrow to draw any meaningful conclusions in the broader market.
I’m also surprised at the progress but don’t quite share the “AI is doing a good job” perspective.
It’s fine. Some things it’s awful at. The more you know about what you’re asking for the worse the result in my opinion.
That said a lot of my complaints are out of date apis being referenced and other little nuisances. If ai is writing the code, why did we even need an ergonomic api update in the first place. Maybe apis stabilize and ai just goes nuts.
LLMs are doing a great job at generating syntactically correct output related to the prompt or task at hand. The semantics, hierarchy, architecture, abstraction, security, and maintainability of a code base is not being handled by LLMs generating code.
So far, the syntax has gotten better in LLMs. More tooling allows for validation of the syntax even more, but all those other things are still missing.
I feel like my job is still safe: but that of less experienced developers is in jeopardy. We will see what the future brings.
Its sort of crazy to think about how big tech companies have a smaller and smaller window to be a "fun" and interesting story/idea. Facebook was pretty fun for a bit, google was obviously an idea factory for a while and even stuff like the doodles were a big deal.
Stuff like Uber and AirBnB were controversial at some levels but still generally "game changers" in specific industries and it was fun/interesting to be early adopters.
OpenAI was under the radar IRT public consciousness pre-gpt3.5.... we all had fun w/ chatGPT... and then immediately OAI starts generating headlines that are not fun/inventive/quirky. A lot of regulatory stuff, governments around the world. Instant globalization + general horror.
There is so much "fun" to be had without new regulation shooting you down immediately. It's just that when you (or your niche) gets to a large enough size where it (might) impact enough people negatively. Regulations are needed. And if you ask me very sensible.
OpenAI has about 400 million weekly users at the moment. Can you imagine the regulations you would have to comply with if you want to serve 400 million sandwiches? or just run a parking lot for 400 million cars or literally anything else.
I think one of the things about growing up is accepting personal responsibility and not looking at the government/daddy to protect you from everything. If I sell 400 million skateboards - do we need a regulatory board to approve skateboard design changes?
I'm sure millions of people make unregulated sandwiches at home just fine.
>I think one of the things about growing up is accepting personal responsibility and not looking at the government/daddy to protect you from everything. If I sell 400 million skateboards - do we need a regulatory board to approve skateboard design changes?
Yes, especially if your target market for those skateboard are kids / minors.
>I'm sure millions of people make unregulated sandwiches at home just fine.
If someone makes a sandwich for themselves incentives are aligned to prevent unhygienic practices. I'm not going to cut corners to maximize some different measure. If some restaurant produces food for me, they are incentivized to maximize profit margin, which is not directly aligned with my desire for non-dangerous food.
What I hate about this argument is that the FDA does not predate civilization. In fact, it's a relatively recent development. Not only has this idea been tried, but throughout most of human history, people lived in the world you describe, died of salmonella, and the people who lived in that world decided they'd be better if that wasn't a thing anymore.
Yeah, making sure there's a standard of cleanliness or food safety in restaurants seems kind of pointless, right? If the consumer eats that food, it's their fault for sure.
I can see a world where there's a private alternative to the FDA going around and certifying that food is safe for consumption. I just know that the world before the FDA didn't have one, and the FDA works well enough that I'm not willing to find out. I think this has a lot of parallels to software - if it ain't broke don't fix it.
That is a really good point, what would be the business model of such an organization? Who funds them?
If it is the government, then that is just the FDA with extra steps
I could imagine food companies funding it to keep their competitors in check, don't know how likely that is in practice
Maybe there could be a way to make the consumer pay for the service. Provide a website where customers pay a fee, enter the name of the product/restaurant then get their safety levels. You could even include fancy graphs and charts to sweeten the deal. How to do that profitably I dont know.
Part of the thing about growing up is realizing that you are a PRIVELEGED little product of a stable society. And maybe it's worth caring about others in that society instead of "corporate innovation" that threatens to fully destabilize said society.
A sense of personal responsibility dilutes very quickly as more people get involved. This is a well researched dynamic in groups and collectives.
As it turns out, it's very easy to rationalize your own actions if you can defer your responsibility to a wider context. On an operational level: "My job - HR, SRE engineering, project management,... - didn't hurt anyone.", "I received an industry award last year for my work",... On a strategic level: "Too many people rely on us, so we can't fail.", "Our original mission didn't change.", "Our mission was, is and will be a net positive", ... Not just that, actually being convinced that those rationalizations are 100% true, and not being able to consciously notice how your own actions in a small, or large, way contribute to a negative impact. Just listen to testimonies of these people, the truly are convinced to their core that their work is a net positive for humanity.
> If I sell 400 million skateboards - do we need a regulatory board to approve skateboard design changes?
Suppose your design involves a wonky wheel. If you sell 10 skateboards, and 1 person falls, breaks their leg and decides to sue you for damages: that's a private problem between you and that person. If you sell 400 million skateboards, and millions of people people break their leg: that's a problem for the entirety of society.
Safety is also why car design is heavily regulated. Not necessarily to ensure individual safety, but to make sure that society, as a whole, isn't crippled by hundreds of thousands of people requiring care or getting killed in car accidents.
If you are able to sell 400 million skateboards, I sure hope there are regulations that enforce the safety of your product design.
This is a nice fantasy, it's just a shame we live in a world full of psychotic C-suites that would do anything and everything they could if it meant the magic line goes up half a percentage point. I guess you could just "take personal responsibility" to not drink polluted water tainted by unfiltered chemical dumps, but I'd much rather we tell companies to get bent when they try pollute rivers and lakes en-masse to save a buck.
What I always find hilarious about these naive libertarian types is they never even bother to check their hypotheticals against reality. For example, FutureMotion had to have a regulatory body intervene because they were killing and injuring people with their skateboard designs:
DeepSeek Really Shattered OpenAI to Its Core. It’s funny because a few weeks back, in response to Elon Musk’s attempt to buy OpenAI, Sam Altman responded: ‘I wish he would just compete by building a better product.’ https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/openai-is-go...
we have a concept called a 401k (and for non-profits a 403b). You contribute some % of your paycheck and your employer matches some amount of that (potentially with a vesting schedule)
The money can be invested, and then at some age (55.5 i believe?) you can access the money without being taxed. There is a maximum you can contribute per year etc etc.
I am not old enough to ever have had a pension option in my entire life, but I believe 401Ks are overall worse, because pensions come w/ some amount of guaranteed payout + someone managing the fund to ensure that happens. a 401K can go to zero, and you can forget to contribute (and most of the money is your own money anyways)
> The money can be invested, and then at some age (55.5 i believe?) you can access the money without being taxed. There is a maximum you can contribute per year etc etc.
Not quite - you're given a tax benefit (i.e., not taxed) on your contributions when you contribute them, but when you withdraw funds you pay income tax. If you withdraw before the 'retirement age' (55.5, as you say) then you pay an additional penalty.
The idea being that you would be in a higher tax bracket during your earning years, but in retirement you'd be theoretically in a lower tax bracket, therefore would get some tax savings. Additionally, since the tax savings is taken off of the 'top' of the bracket when you contribute and when you withdraw its added to the 'bottom'.
There's also Roth contributions (where you get no benefit now, but don't pay taxes on gains later when you withdraw), but not all plans offer this.
Pensions are not under your control. mostly they were good but once in a while the company you worked for, for 30 years went bankrupt and then you found out the penson was in company stock so not only were you out your job/income you also lost your retirement. In response to that we now have laws about what pensons can invest in - but that means their returns are terrible and so they are not a good roi.
more people have access to a 401k today than ever had a pension as well.
> You contribute some % of your paycheck and your employer matches some amount of that (potentially with a vesting schedule)
This is actually completely optional, many employers do not. For example mine does not do any matching or contributions
> The money can be invested, and then at some age (55.5 i believe?) you can access the money without being taxed. There is a maximum you can contribute per year etc etc.
So the tax side of this depends on if the 401k was done as Roth or traditional. Traditional IRAs are tax advantaged but not tax free. Contributions are pre-tax from the employee's paycheck. Roth on the other hand is post tax and tax free on withdrawal (assuming no penalties).
The pensions I had in mind (UK) don't have any guaranteed payout and can go to zero. We don't have to have anyone "managing" them, and I for one think that's a good thing.
People have been getting tattoos for a pretty long time. I don't really see this as stopping that?
If you have tattoos its entirely possible you'll actually be more careful in the sun by applying sunscreen.... but you also might be more prone to showing your ink off and therefore exposing a greater area of skin to the sun.
If there is some common ingredient that has been used in tattoo inks recently and we're concerned about that, let me know.... but generally speaking I don't think this is interesting information
It's mostly only here on HN where people (in their commenter persona) take this kind of study so seriously and pretend that they must either live uncompromising teetotaling lives in pursuit of optimal and maximally long health, or that the study has to be nonsense/misleading.
In reality, all of us live lives that put at greater risk of this and lesser risk of that. The real value of learning that there's perhaps some association with one of our activities and a specific disease or other kind of harm is that we can be watchful of that disease or harm emerging in our own lives and thereby give ourselves more opportunity to respond. Or perhaps we might use it as reason to moderate, or to finally stop doing something we already feel conflicted about.
So this kind of thing is definitely interesting information for some people, but as often for HN, we can expect a lot of comments engaging with it only in extremes of condemnation or refutation.
Scientific research doesn’t have to directly impact personal decision making to be useful and interesting. This study provides a data point suggesting a link between having tattoos and skin cancer - it’s certainly interesting to the medical field to better understand what increases the risk of cancer. A lot of research into smoking cigarettes and cancer also didn’t have much impact on people who decided to smoke, but it was also valuable knowledge.
> If you have tattoos its entirely possible you'll actually be more careful in the sun by applying sunscreen.... but you also might be more prone to showing your ink off and therefore exposing a greater area of skin to the sun.
Knowing multiple tattoo artists, that's exactly what they observe from their customers : some are very careful about their skin exposure while other are doing the exact opposite.
They are not healthcare professionnal so they don't study skin cancers, but they can easily tell which one is which based on how the tattoo evolve year after year.
This could probably be the easiest factor to check.
Regarding the inks, since there's little to no regulation, even in the EU, and people tend to get tattooed when away from home, it could be much, much trickier.
Most inks up until the 20th century were carbon black (some vermilion and prussian blue). That changed with the introduction of both organic and inorganic color dyes over the last 100 years. Only recently has there been much regulation at all.
Ink composition and regulation might vary regionally. The original article mentions
> The most frequently used tattoo ink is black. Black ink typically contains soot products like carbon black, which is listed as possibly carcinogenic to humans (mainly based on studies of carbon black inhalation and risk of lung cancer) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [13]. Through the incomplete combustion used for carbon black production, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are formed as byproducts. One of the most dangerous of these is benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), which is classified as carcinogenic to humans by the IARC [14].
You really don't want benzo[a]pyrene floating around your system, it's a potent carcinogen that's been firmly established by many studies. Some papers focus on directly on PAHs and tattoos, for example this PLoS One 2014 paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24670978/
I don't think the result of this study would stop people from getting tattoos, but if you're on the fence, then perhaps it could sway you. Either way, it can provide information to doctors to perhaps screen them more often for skin cancer, or people to get screened, given that it might show a higher risk.
Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity