>With Claude Code I often have multi-second freezes and it’s process blows up to gigabytes of memory.
I am in a mood where I find it excessively funny that, all that talk about AI, agents, billions of dollars, tera-watts/-hours spent, and people still manage to publish posts with the "its/it's" mistake.
(I am not a native English speaker, so I notice it at a higher rate than people who learned English "by ear".)
Maybe you don't care or you find it annoying to have it pointed out, but it says something about fundamentals. You know, "The way you do one thing is the way you do all things".
As a native speaker, for a very long time I didn't understand why "its" existed, and saw "it's" as parallel to "aredox's" - apostophe-s being either ownership or contraction depending on context (made even more confusing because "s" without an apostrophe is pluralization with other words). Somehow it didn't click until late teens or early 20s that "its" is supposed to be a separate word along the lines of "his" and "hers".
i dont think its/it's will still be distinct in the dictionary in 15 years. Native english speakers dont really care about the difference, and autocorrect on touch keyboards have disconnected a lot of the input and output of people's typing.
>Which is it? The MAGA people tried many lawsuits and many appeals to voting authorities for investigations. The unanimous response “safest election ever”.
What you handwave as "the unanimous response" has in reality been dozen of trials, where the people pretending there has been election fraud weren't able to offer any proof, and some were even held in contempt for refusing to substantiate their baseless claims in front of a judge.
Great, so I’m sure that you will not complain at all if Democrats lose in the future where a single company controls so many voting machines, unless they are able to prove fraud beyond a reasonable doubt in mere days after the election, right? And you’ll not complain if the vast majority of the suits filed are dismissed on procedural grounds such as standing, right? Because voters and candidates and state attorneys general obviously have no case or controversy in a contested election?
Yes there were a very small number of kooky cases in 2020. The vast majority did NOT get a fair hearing at all.
Lots. Anything involving standing at the least, but also many of the “unauthorized people changed the rules without the authority of the state legislature”.
You’ll find similar lists on Wikipedia and at the American Bar Association; they slant their interpretations differently than I do here. Look into a couple of the “standing” or “no merit” cases and see if you really think they were without merit or that there was no “case or controversy” as defined in the Constitution.
Yes, a couple were kooky, particularly around voting machines, but most were “you changed the rules in a way that weakens election security and you are not Constitutionally allowed to do that, since you aren’t the state legislature and the written law is at odds with your rules”.
So I did go ahead and read over the first on your list, claims, Pennsylvania supreme Court ruling, and the district court ruling (super fun reading) and yeah... Not convinced. I won't attempt to summarize everything here because it's a grab bag, which is common with all these election cases. Throw a bunch of shit at the wall and hope something sticks. The claims pretty much boil down to X common practice (including many that are common in my state of Idaho, ex mail in ballots, drop boxes, which, weird, no challenges) could lead to fraud and are therefore unconstitutional, under some fuzzily spelled out mechanizm, and we are entitled to ??? (Seriously, no clear cut relief was spelled out for most claims, which is generally a requirement).
Now sure, maybe this is one of the "kooky" ones, but then we are back to, which ones? "Here's a list of 100 cases, read them all" isnt a reasonable ask. Getting a handle on this one was a significant (wasted) time investment. One which I already wasted significant amounts of time on back in 2020-2021.
You claim "most" did not get a fair hearing. It shouldn't be hard to pick one and clearly explain what was unfair about it.
>The vast majority did NOT get a fair hearing at all.
So, what you are saying, in essence (and without any examples of the "cast majority" of serious cases that didn't get a fair hearing and that I, and almost everyone, somehow missed), is that there is no real justice system in America.
Well, then it is time to put your money where your mouth is: grab your guns and start a civil war. If there is no justice system, your country is a failed country anyway. You can only kill your way out. There is no other alternative.
Funny that with full control of the Congress, the Senate, the presidency and a completely compliant DOJ and FBI we still haven't seen any proof of anything. It should be an easy case, a home run if you are right, uh?
Or, you know... You may be delusional. Try to give it a thought.
And, notably, Republicans have been making claims of widespread voter fraud in favor of Democrats since well before Trump, have gotten into state office in part on a message of cracking down on it, followed up with investigations, and come up with... nothing. A handful of "whoopsie" mistakes (still prosecutable, sure, but probably not done on purpose) and the odd one or two actual attempts at individual fraud, with no strong partisan slant. No conspiracy, no rampant fraud at all.
Where's Trump's investigation of this? Any of the Republican governors in the states he or his proxies allege widespread fraud? That should have been a top priority! They're not aggressively pursuing it because there's nothing there, and they know it. Anyone looking critically at their behavior over the couple decades, at least, that they've been alleging organized Democratic voter fraud can tell they don't believe their own allegations, because they don't act like they do when it comes time to put up or shut up.
I resent them for their choices and their dishonesty. Things they chose to be and could change if they were open to discussion in good faith - which they refuse.
They resent me and millions of others for my skin color or my sexual orientation or where I was born. Things I never chose and can't change.
But DEI isn’t and wasn’t ever that. I did DEI training at two different jobs and it boiled down to “you can’t know what someone else may be going through, or where they’ve been, and no the best course of action is to be open and curious”. Heck, in my most recent DEI training, one of the people to be sympathetic towards was a white cis man - it was a section focusing on discrimination based on age.
Both sides can not, in my view, argue both things: the right as we see it in America wants to oppress people based on immutable values such as race and gender.
The left wants people to acknowledge that “hey maybe it’s ok if everything doesn’t cater to one specific archetype of a person” - no reasonable person on the left wants to punish or oppress anyone for being a “white cisgender male”.
There’s this idea I’ve held onto that seems very apt: when a group that was being oppressed is given the same rights as their oppressors, their oppressors feel as though something is being taken from them.
You're taking the most charitable view of the underlying worldview of the progressive left and the most infernal view of the right. That's not epistemologically fair.
There is a alot of performative contradiction being performed here, there's an evokation of post-structuralist assumptions when you critique the particularist structure of modern society that favours certain archetypes based on certain assumptions, but then your later statement about oppressors and oppressed itself is projecting a new framing that is prone to it's own dubious assumptions and favours certain archetypes (the oppressed). There isn't much actual concrete grounding of ethical values here, and that's ironically reflected in the fact that most people do have different opinions on the matter.
But that's not a contradiction that progressivism can escape, because to provide a strong grounding to say "Racism is bad", you need to evoke from a universalist framework, one that empiricism or liberalism previously provided. But it is precisely the perceived arrogance to declare your values as universal when they emerged particularly from the West that is what is being critiqued in critical theory as Systemic Racism. Power + Prejudice.
Well, the Left and Right does draw alot from the identity politics promulgated from the Nazi Philosopher Carl Schmitt. Did you know that he supported the Nazis from the basis of pluralism, that he was terrified of the rise of universalist, homogenous world state?
Your account has been repeatedly breaking the site guidelines with flamewar comments and personal attacks. Moreover, you've been using HN primarily for political battle (something which is not allowed here, regardless of which politics you're for or against). Since we asked you to stop doing these things and you haven't stopped, I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
>Assuming the voting and election situation doesn't change, they won't be in office forever, possibly even the next term.
Trump pardoned all of the Jan 6th putchists.
Trump ordered full military honor for Ashley Babbitt.
Trump put openly said after meeting Putin that more than ever, he believes the 2020 elections were rigged.
Trump appointed an election denier as the secretary for "Election Integrity".
Trump appointed pure servile hacks as heads of FBI, CIA and Justice (I mean, Kash write a book with Trump as a king).
Trump ordered 800 military brass to come to Quantico to be lectured about the "Enemy from within", turn American cities into military training grounds and that anyone that disappoints him will lose everything.
I mean, how many more clues do you need, to admit the next election will be cancelled as soon as they lose? He literally said what he was going to do. And there has been no pushback, neither from the military nor parliamentarians.
> I mean, how many more clues do you need, to admit the next election will be cancelled as soon as they lose? He literally said what he was going to do. And there has been no pushback, neither from the military nor parliamentarians.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be done if it was possible, but I am working off the current status quoa that exists now. And I wouldn't be so sure about a lack of military pushback if something like cancelling national elections was called.
There isn't any need to fake all that much unless their popular support completly collapses. Claim Califoria's election was irregular, fudge some numbers, or just replace some electoral college delegates, and problem solved.
It won't be cancelling national elections. It will be "suspending" a few local ones, enough to tilt the balance, and then using any excuse - e.g. "antifa", but any protest is enough - to escalate, to justify, progressively, a military clampdown.
>I wouldn't be so sure about a lack of military pushback
Again, Ashley Babbitt received full military honors for trying to overrun security at the Capitol to attack congressmen and women to overturn the election. That's what happened. Nobody has said anywhere in the military "it's wrong".
The "status quo" is that the president, immune from any prosecution, is saying openly he is ready to use soldiers to shoot at American citizens when he gives the order, and anyone who disobeys will be fired.
Elections are essential for legitimacy these days. There’s something like three countries on the planet that don’t have elections. North Korea has elections.
Inconvenience and intimidation will be used to discourage voters in opposition areas. Reasons will be found to discard ballots. Results will be challenged, reasons found to delay certification of unfavorable results until it’s too late.
Imagine 2020, except done by smarter people who have had four years to think about how they’ll do it. And who have had four years to see that there are zero consequences for them even if they don’t succeed.
Those lists are pointless if we can't see exactly for what words those people have been fired.
If my employee makes a slur against "n*ggers" while he has black coworkers, it is not the same thing as simply copy-pasting Kirk's own words on gun violence being an acceptable consequence of the 2nd amendment.
Europe has laws against hate speech that Americans think reach too far, but the positive side effect is that employers are not the one doing the calls - which they do instantly, under pressure, without any chance for the employees to defend themselves. A European firm has no basis to fire an employee until a court has reached a conclusion - the best they can do is suspend the employee.
The FAMA story links to examples, though not all of the links remain live.
One of the first was from a police officer who had posted on social media, "If he can scream he can breath, something else was going on. I’ve been pepper sprayed with CS gas and it messes with your breathing but you can definitely still breath.”
Another was a sports broadcaster who was forced out/resigned after tweeting: "Longtime Sacramento Kings TV broadcaster Grant Napear resigned Tuesday after he tweeted "ALL LIVES MATTER" when asked by DeMarcus Cousins for his opinion on the Black Lives Matter movement.”
Some of the links, and therefore the comments, are not accessible from Europe, but the actual comments (or stories including the comments) are all there.
It wasn't literal and it wasn't quoting. Kirk named 4 people in his actual quote, she maliciously changed it to make it appear he said it was about all women of a certain race, and put it in quotes so that people think she was quoting verbatim.
"If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."
Her edit is wrong, and probably deliberate, for that she will be criticized. But Kirk did write and say some truly heinous things. That much is something we all know.
He accused four successful black women of "steal[ing] a white person's slot", and guys here are desperately trying to pretend it only applies to these four persons.
Again, you're putting words in our mouths just like she did to Kirk.
You should never be attributing verbatim quotes to someone while signing their name to it, especially as a journalist, it's simply wrong and unacceptable.
The reader can decide for themselves what Kirk actually meant after reading his actual original quote with you or her deciding for all of us.
Do you seriously think Kirk is only accusing the "four people" - four successful black women - of "steal[ing] a white person's slot" and just these four? Only these four? That this is the message he is sending?
The point is that it in no way justifies making up quotes and adding his name to them as if he literally said something else verbatim, especially as someone working for a newspaper.
She could've just added what she thought he actually meant after not butchering what he said on purpose.
""Really, this is as much the fault of the SPD as of the NSDAP, both are to blame for this", I think, while the Obersturmführer's dogs tear down the prisoner next to me."
Alas, this is the same argument that can be used against the 1st amendment and the political opposition: "Rejoicing in Kirk's death is immoral, therefore the 1st amendment doesn't apply, and let's abusively prosecute anyone we can tie to him in any way".
You said that morality must be above the laws. That means that one has priority over the other. aredox is arguing based on that, not confusing the two.
The Reichtag fire was caused by a Communist militant- at the time where "Communist" meant litterally "Stalinist".
Even if the Charlie Kirk murderer was a crimson red trans gay pedophilic crypto scammer and card-carrying Democrat personally instructed and paid by Obama, the point here is "using him as a pretext to destroy all opposition under false pretense".
Yes, and it is bad if the government do that. It does not mean it is then correct to claim he has beliefs he doesn’t. We should be saying “we don’t know his beliefs and the government is making a power grab”
I am in a mood where I find it excessively funny that, all that talk about AI, agents, billions of dollars, tera-watts/-hours spent, and people still manage to publish posts with the "its/it's" mistake.
(I am not a native English speaker, so I notice it at a higher rate than people who learned English "by ear".)
Maybe you don't care or you find it annoying to have it pointed out, but it says something about fundamentals. You know, "The way you do one thing is the way you do all things".