Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | joering2's commentslogin

He/FB was very against Trump/MAGA during his first tenure with the "fact check teams" verifying majority of popular opinions on FB, until before second election Trump posted that Zuckerberg should be in prison for meddling and giving Democrats their positive push. Nothing happened until Trump won second term, then the fact check teams were gone and Zuckerberg donated 1 million to Trump. Here Google AI will say it better than I can:

Donation: Meta's $1 million donation to the inauguration fund was a departure from previous years, aimed at fostering goodwill with the new administration.

Relationship Repair: Following years of tension and accusations of anti-conservative bias, Zuckerberg has taken steps to align with the MAGA movement, including dining with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

Policy & Structural Changes: Meta has made several changes, including reducing professional fact-checking, appointing UFC CEO Dana White (a Trump ally) to its board, and hiring high-profile Republican policy staff.

Motivations: The moves are seen as an attempt to avoid further regulation or antitrust action from the Trump administration, especially regarding artificial intelligence and business operations.

Edit: in this instance, stay out of jail card costed $1 million.


Well, not a "stay out of jail" card. It was a "quit having to worry that maybe 1) Trump actually means it, and 2) the courts will go along, and 3) my legal team can't save me.

Under current circumstances, the odds that Trump could have had Zuckerberg jailed for anti-Trump fact checking are very close to zero.


Seriously.

Mark's got 250 billion dollars, founded a 2 trillion dollar company, and is quite possibly the wealthiest self-made person alive today. It is highly likely Mark also possesses some form of security clearance from the NSA related to issues adjacent to his company. It it also likely that Mark has some form of kompromat

Donald Trump is a pedophile and a lying grandstander who has always talked tough and backed down when up against someone who knows what they are doing.

Donald Trump could try to put Mark in jail. Mark has hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent the government from touching him. It wouldn't happen. The second Donald Trump tried shit, Mark would simply buy the top 100 law firms in the nation, and have them work together to stop Trump, and Trump would back down.


I wasn't voting for Trump, but if you have a credible evidence that "Trump is a pedophile" then you should immediately go to your nearest police station and report it. Otherwise you might be found in a lot of legal trouble for aiding and abetting "a pedophile" even if unintentionally.

With that being said, I don't think you know much about how litigations work. Buying 100 top law firms and having I presume all those lawyers working on your case does not help you win your case; judges do not get intimidated by the law firm you use. And that's like saying drinking 100x more protein will get me muscles 100x faster.

Trump trying to put Mark in jail is all that needs to happen for a starter. He could cost his company billions; once they done with FB and all the political power then can rain, the stock would be some 80% down. Mark would be worth 90% of what he has now and would be radioactive for any future business endeavors. I mean it should be clear at this point that President of USA does have a power to destroy your life and/or business. He doesn't need to put you in prison to end your life. And Mark wouldn't pay $1 million bribe if he would think otherwise.


This is amazing! I WISH somebody would take 15 seconds of this clip, add China flag in the bottom, then add scratching sounds of a vinyl disc and forward to this, with Felon Musk/American flag:

https://www.reddit.com/r/robotics/comments/1ph3scw/tesla_opt...


> And so we should expect AI to look the same

Is that somewhat substantiated assumption? I recall learning on University in 2001 the history of AI and that initial frameworks were written in 70's and that prediction was we will reach human-like intelligence by 2000. Just because Sama came up with this somewhat breakthrough of an AI, it doesn't mean that equal improvement leaps will be done on a monthly/annual basis going forward. We may as well not make another huge leaps or reach what some say human intelligence level in 10 years or so.


unsure what you mean by starting IDing? Majority business in US does it already, all banks use facial recognition to know who comes through their door (friend who works in IT at Bank of America told me they implemented it cross all Florida branches sometime in 2009), most large chain gas stations as well, so does car rentals, most hotels, etc. I was recently booted out of Mazda Dealership in Florida because 11 years ago in Georgia I sued Toyota Dealership for a lemon sell, and now they both under same ownership and my name came up on "no business" alert when I entered their offices.

With the money they spending, could it ended up to be AIISS - low orbit station just for a farm of these chips or alikes? space seems to be most reasonable place for it, even at $40 million dollar trip to space, the can pack one rocket with the whole farm - one side solar panel, the other side heat exhaust and downlink via laser beam, sort of speak. But you get the point.

Has anyone ever walked down the road in a white t-shirt with huge red STOP sign printed on the back? Would Tesla immediately stop? I am sure this has been tested before...


> you have no choice but to give it to them

Will they shoot me in head?

What if I truly forgot the password to my encrypted drive? Will they also shoot me in the head?


Do they need to actually shoot you? Have you had a loaded gun pressed to your head and asked for your password?

What about your wife's head? Your kids' heads?


Evernote is dead?


Wow, thanks for the video actually. For a long time I felt he was complete jerk but I felt it was maybe biased propaganda. The mere fact he couldn't answer a basic question and explain for all those who don't know, but rather stormed out like a 4 year old child, only proves what I felt about him prior.


Your comment is a great example of someone deciding on a conclusion first, then backfilling a justification using minimal evidence—in this case, a single data point—to validate an existing suspicion or bias. With that standard, you can make virtually any public or semi-public figure look bad if you’re willing to cherry-pick a small enough slice of information.


> cherry-pick a small enough slice of information

[...] For a long time [...]


Take it for whats its worth but I been good friends with someone who works in Newsom camp, and constantly goes for a bite with his team. They talk alot. The main theme now is how to use illegal immigration situation to their benefit. If Newsom is elected President, he wants to go door to door in search for illegal guns that illegals are harboring. Of course all this is BS, or in such insignificant amount that its rather irrelevant. But they want to use Republican's hate for immigrants to help them catalog all serials numbers and ownership of us-owned guns. To some degree it will be fun to watch the "all she had to do is comply with Federal law not to get killed while running away in her car" people rounded up and having their guns cataloged in the name of fight with illegal immigration, and in accordance with Federal law :)


Huh? Are you saying that if Gavin Newsom is elected, rather than turning down the rhetoric, restoring the rule of law, and taking the pressure off of the immigrants and brown people who are scapegoats of the current administration, he instead wants to commit violations of the 4th amendment under the color of searching for immigrants but _actually_ in order to find firearms that are legally owned by US citizens? Presumably in preparation for a mass violation of the 2nd amendment (aka "round 'em up boys")? And your source for this is ... you're friends with someone who works "in the Newsom camp" and you go out for lunch with them?

I'll be honest, this sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory, so I'm gonna take it for what it's worth ... nothing.


He's saying his friend and his friend's coworkers who somehow work for Newsom wants Newsom to do that. Not that Newsome wants to do that.


>If Newsom is elected President, he wants to go door to door in search for illegal guns that illegals are harboring.


Of course the actual implementation is much easier. Just repeal the laws that prevent digitizing the existing records and building a database. That will cover the majority of individuals even if there is a long tail of untracked firearms.


In your “it would be fun to see people I don’t like being killed” you have conflated legal gun ownership that you don’t like to illegally crossing the remaining the borders of a country… and you can’t see it huh?


You're misquoting them. They said "it would be fun to see [people I don't like] have their guns cataloged."


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

Search: