The US actually has a series of social safety nets. There are massive government programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security which provide real, measurable safety nets to the most vulnerable in society. There are also hundreds of thousands of charities, churches, and non-profit organizations that donate time, money, and resources to assist families going through hard times. There is also the US Military, which serves as a government-backed career path for millions of high-school graduates.
I think you're thinking that the US got ahead through exploiting labor. You missed the biggest piece of it though - the US welcomes (or at least until recently used to welcome) massive amounts of highly-educated immigrants from all over the world, and crucially has built a culture and society where those people can feel "American" fairly quickly in a way that they would never if they moved to Switzerland or France.
Being able to brain-drain the entire world and then smartly arm those people with unlimited capital to build their companies and dreams is the "unfair" American advantage. It isn't unethical, it's just not something European society supports. That, and the 30-year mortgage.
1) It's subsidised through cheap labor. The start-up whose founder live and work in buildings built by undocumented labor. Eat food grown by that labor, and served from food trucks run by undocumented labor. It's innovation subsidised by misery.
2) the brain-drain is unethical because it takes subsidised education of individuals without returning anything in return. Emmigrants should get a bill of the cost of their upbringing. It's really free-loading, especially for a country with such a poor public education system as the US.
We basically have that in the US except the government has a monopoly on the police force. The libertarian police corp would be infinitely better as at least there would be competition for police services.
You need legal systems to enforce trust in societies, not code. Otherwise you'll end up with endless $10 wrench attacks until we all agree to let someone else hold our personal wealth for us in a secure, easy-to-access place. We might call it a bank.
The end state of crypto is always just a nightmarish dystopia. Wealth isn't created by hoarding digital currency, it's created by productivity. People just think they found a shortcut, but it's not the first (or last) time humans will learn this lesson.
I call blockchain an instantiation of Bostrom's Paperclip Maximizer running on a hybrid human-machine topology.
We are burning through scarce fuel in amounts sufficient to power a small developed nation in order to reverse engineer... one way hashcodes! Literally that is even less value than turning matter into paperclips.
If gold loses its speculative value, you still have a very heavy, extremely conductive, corrosion resistant, malleable metal with substantial cultural importance.
When crypto collapses, you have literally nothing. It is supported entirely and exclusively by its value to speculators who only buy so that they can resell for profit and never intend to use it.
Well, not literally nothing. You have all that lovely carbon you burned to generate meaningless hashes polluting your biosphere for the next century. That part stays around long after crypto collapses.
The “$10 wrench attack” isn’t an argument against crypto—it’s an argument against human vulnerability.
By that logic, banks don’t work either, since people get kidnapped and forced to drain accounts. The difference is that with crypto, you can design custody systems (multi-sig, social recovery, hardware wallets, decentralized custody) that make such attacks far less effective than just targeting a centralized bank vault or insider.
As for the “end state” being dystopian, history shows centralized finance has already produced dystopias: hyperinflations, banking crises, mass surveillance, de-banking of political opponents, and global inequality enabled by monetary monopolies. Crypto doesn’t claim to magically create productivity—it creates an alternative infrastructure where value can be exchanged without gatekeepers. Productivity and crypto aren’t at odds: blockchains enable new forms of coordination, ownership, and global markets that can expand productive potential.
People now have the option of choosing between institutional trust and cryptographic trust—or even blending them. Dismissing crypto as doomed to dystopia ignores why it exists: because our current systems already fail millions every day.
What they are saying is that we have a system that evolved over time to address real world concerns. You are designing defenses to attacks that may or not be useful, but no one has been able to design past criminals and this is evident because if we could there would be no criminality.
> Dismissing crypto as doomed to dystopia ignores why it exists: because our current systems already fail millions every day.
This only makes sense if crypto solves the problems that current systems fail at. This have not been shown to be the case despite many years of attempts.
Boycotts are different from unsubscribing. You can boycott Chic-fil-a and then one day return, but cutting off monthly revenue streams all at once is a much different dynamic. It takes a lot to get those customers back, especially for a service that already reaches most Americans.
I cancelled on Wednesday night. We probably haven't watched anything on Disney+for two or three weeks; the value was getting lower over time (possibly because we've watched a lot of what we wanted to).
Had it not been for this event, I'd have probably just let the subscription hang around indefinitely (or until some big price increase caused me to reevaluate it), but as you note, it's going to be a struggle to get me back --- not because of the politics involved, but because the politics got me over the "eh, can't be bothered" hump to evaluate the value I was getting and it came up kinda marginal compared to when I first signed up.
Maybe. There are lots of people who subscribe to these streaming services for a month or a season and then cancel, and then sign up again later because there's a new show they want to watch.
""For the first time ever in our country's history, we are making leading-edge 4nm chips on American soil, American workers — on par in yield and quality with Taiwan," Raimondo told Reuters."
Exactly. A Taiwanese company has just started manufacturing leading edge semiconductors in the US. SpaceX, on the other hand uses Taiwanese semiconductors mostly packaged by STMicroelectronics in Europe, although it's announced plans to in-house some of the packaging. Because until recently, it was kind of assumed that buying things from other countries because they did them cheaply and efficiency was sensible business rather than a glaring supply chain weakness or "your continent doesn't innovate, our country is better than yours"...
See also European companies and their choice of launch options...
Check out the tech behind avalanche beacons for some inspiration. They are meant to locate bodies buried deep in snow debris fields within a meter precision. You have to also have a beacon to search for another beacon.
Surprising as it may seem, avalanches are easier to avoid [1] and easier to handle it comes to communication[2]. To an extent of course[3].
[1] I used to be terrified of the concept of an Avalanche. However, at the end of the day you're only exposed to an Avalanche if you choose to be or live next to a large mountain in the winter. It's not even like Hawaiians living next to an active volcano. All you have to do (in terms of living) is to move away during Avalanche season. Hawaiians atleast have the excuse of "it hasn't erupted in 10 years"-maybe. THe other example is if you're a skiing/winter-sport enthusiast (like me). And you simply balance your chance of an avalanche vs the reports and "how much fun it sounds to ski with your friends"
[2] If you find yourself in an avalanche situation, you need/must do your best to "swim" to the top of the avalanche. There is gear that can help you do so outside of beacons or "signal based" notifications. Once you've established all those unfeasible, you're left with the same tools a "sudden earthquake victim" is up against. You still have the upper hand because a simple handheld transceiver (from like Icom, Kenwood or Yaesu) will have 100x the range through snow vs one through liquid water or concrete.
[3] Physically speaking: ice is eventually going to behave like water under enough depth. I think.
We know that the administration ordered the name change for the Gulf of Mexico, and immediately following that order the data layers via USGS broke. Probably because someone (or some organization of geniuses) tried to change it directly without consulting anyone.
Trying to sea-lion your way through this convo after the person replying to you gave a detailed breakdown of the situation is gross. Don't be a sycophant.
See my response above. My intent to look for more info was misread as defense of DOGE. They're a bunch of clowns in a town that has lots of other clowns all entranced to the same person. There are lots of people who could have messed this up as well.
I hope all the people working in tech today realize that once you let the executive ignore laws that you dislike, it's a very clear path to them ignoring laws that protect you and your companies. You WILL be a target eventually and nobody is going to protect you.
This is a slow-motion disaster but too many people are complacent because they think it's not going to affect them. No matter your political leanings we cannot allow a constitutional crisis to go unchecked. Things that we take for granted dissolve rapidly if institutions start grabbing power without consequences.
This isn't a politics forum, but abolishing USAID without congress was also insane. I don't care if you dislike something USAID does or did, it would require congress to legally abolish it.
And a few other things, that's just a prominent example.
Congress is pretty much ignoring this. Both parties.
Probably like the apparatchik of the Soviet "parliament", that just rubber stamped everything, and can then enjoy the luxury of being the elite the rest of the day. Just needs more mistresses (corruption is already there), anyone got Matt Gaetz' number?
Alcoholic (speaking of Russian stereotypes!) wife-abuser as defense minister? Rubber-stamped! RFK as health minister? Rubber-stamped! Glory to the union!
> All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
> Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Meanwhile on the "executive" side:
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
To me, this is pretty clear, at least about things like war and treaties and land acquisition. But it's easy to come up with a ton of examples from all parties that seem to violate these very basic rules.
What I would read as very fundamental "violations" of the document are often upheld by courts as being in agreement with it.
By the majority in Congress voting to block any attempts to challenge the executive branch.
Judges are acting to stay executive orders, but judicial processes are deliberately slow and the current administration seated several current Supreme Court judges.
Civil disobedience and mass unrest seems inevitable when the rule of law and balance of powers is systemically undermined.
Yet initially the two current leaders of the Democratic Party seemed determined to broadcast their own weakness. Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries spent last week at a donor retreat with billionaire tech leaders, only to emerge whining, ‘What leverage do we have? They control the House, the Senate, and the presidency.’… Jeffries’s conflation of “leverage” with “holding a majority in a chamber” is jaw-dropping. Power—the ability to change the behavior of another—comes from information, charisma, law, attention, procedure, expertise, and the ability to convene and organize. … What could they have done? Here are four suggestions: First, vigorous procedural delay….. Second, convene and spotlight. They should not see their power just through the lens of how it has traditionally been used. Congressional Democratic leadership should also make full use of their own convening power, holding hearings taking testimony from fired and pressured employees…. Congressional Democrats can also do more on basic legal protection of the institution. The people’s house is under attack, and they should be wielding law like swords to defend it. While Democratic state attorneys general have been filing lawsuit after lawsuit, congressional leadership—whose own power as the lawmaking arm of the American public is being decimated—should understand they also need to play a key role in making sure lawsuits are brought to block the destruction. Whatever their legal abilities, they are all astute fundraisers, and can play matchmaker between constituents, possible plaintiffs, lawyers, and donors to make sure that effective and well-resourced lawsuits are brought to stop the illegal power plays….. Finally, they can go on offense, forcing Trump and Republicans to either help Americans, or clearly demonstrate that they don’t want to. That means being willing to work with Republicans—if they can get laws passed that make people’s lives better, and not focus on Democratic Party branding.”
Congress is also ignoring the principles laid out in the Constitution by acting like presidents have unilateral power when they do not, and were never intended to. Many members of Congress have defended Trump's actions on these issues by implying that voters gave him a mandate, but the voters also voted for Congress, and they are supposed to check the President in some ways. Congress is probably supposed to be the most impactful branch of federal government, not the weakest.
Laws are just words on paper if no one decides to enforce them. What is Congress going to do to Trump, impeach him? lol
Okay, so Congress could pass a resolution saying they consider the dissolution of USAID a violation of the law… but the silence speaks for itself. The law is not what is written, the law is what we do and what we tolerate.
The billionaire doing the abolishing also called it a nest of Marxist vipers.
Really just the wild stuff that Elon and Trump post to their social media is terrifyingly unhinged. I feel most people get the sane-washed version via the media but it's genuinely mind boggling to read their directly published public comments about stuff.
Direct quote for the record:
> USAID was a viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America
Isn't this a slippery slope into authoritarianism? How are people not more worried about this? The whole of checks and balances is this, this is democracy literally eroding away isn't it?
We’re in the authoritarianism part already, the 3 branches are aligned on this. The democrats whole campaign this election was to worry , but they are too committed to process and impartiality to have any effect (and let’s face it, most of congress is too old and/or too rich to give a damn what happens to our democracy in the first place)
Many of us made peace with this road a couple decades back and have been focused on building communities locally to survive it. Obama, Trump, Biden, GW ... they were all building the road to this moment together.
It's like watching one of those hydraulic press videos - the slow build up of the squeeze has been happening for awhile, we've finally arrived at the point where the pressure is really deforming stuff. But it was predictable for a long time.
Just for completeness, Congress’ check on the executive and judicial is impeachment, but this check is somewhat defeated by party politics, a weakness President Washington was prescient enough to warn us about in his farewell address
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
While this is true (to some degree anyway), it seems qualitatively different from Congress (and then backed up by SCOTUS) explicitly banning a specific company (and explicitly banning other companies from doing specific things related to that company) and then being completely ignored by an incoming president who just says "wut? no worries, carry on tiktok".
this is not a debate about just what the intelligence community can and cannot do, or what level of enforcement and in what communities is appropriate for a given law. it is a point blank statement "i am the president, and you (tiktok) and you (google, apple) can ignore the law", made in public, without any possible national security justification (whatever level of BS that might normally come with).
It's somewhat different to not enforce a general law against a multitude of possible targets and enforcing a law literally imposed against a single target.
A lot of people don't get fined for jaywalking and it's not a big deal because it's understood that it's a lot of work to actually cite all of them everywhere, so the difference between the normal level of not enforcing everything and intentionally not enforcing isn't 0 vs 100.
This is passing a law that John Smith should go to jail and then deciding you don't actually want to send him to jail. Why did you bother passing the law if you didn't care. Trump literally started all this TikTok banning stuff and now is against it, but isn't actually repealing the law. Congress seems to have just given up too. It's fully lawless.
He is a servant of chaos to use fantasy terminology (due to lifelong mental imbalances that were glaringly obvious way before he got power). Maybe chaotic neutral after all + and - will eventually be summarised, but for now, for most of the world he veers towards evil scale.
Maybe something good will come out of this like Europe finally waking up, even now in 2025 here on HN I got attacked for warmongering if I dare say that we should increase defense (literally in our case) budgets.
Elephant in the porcelaine shop will make a room for new products for sure but thats not the most important thing that happens.
The law went into effect on the last day of the Biden administration. If you are going to traffic in provable facts, “Biden declined to implement enforcement of a new law on his final day in office” is a more descriptive provable fact to share.
I'm noting that there is a qualititive difference in Trump's behavior with respect to this law compared with ... well, anything anyone has been comparing it to.
No, we're downvoting a bad-faith argument. Typical Trump-supporter nonsense, trying to equate Biden's and Trump's actions when they are qualitatively and quantitatively completely different.
That's a very good point. There are certainly more examples of laws that go un-enforced to reinforce your point. For example jaywalking laws are routinely flouted with little enforcement. Likewise buggery laws are routinely ignored by law enforcement.
Along that axis, you are certainly right that it is basically the same as the president unilaterally choosing to exempt a specific multibillion dollar company controlled by a powerful foreign adversary from laws passed by congress with the intent of shoring up national security.
This insight is well received by me and I'm sure others.
The executive branch is explicitly granted the power to choose which drugs are or aren't scheduled. The law already having provisions to allow the executive to choose which drugs to ban or not makes the choice not to enforce very different qualitatively.
