> In what world is public opinion not universally against the cartels? It's hard to take you seriously after that.
I think you’re getting tripped up by some specific wording and managing to miss the point the poster was making. The point should be taken seriously even if imprecisely articulated. While most folks are against the cartels, there’s a much wider range of belief on how much they warrant government or military intervention and to what degree we should be spending various resources on them. The historical state of play was(is?) that cartels are criminal organizations which are generally a policing matter that has escalated to specialized policing agencies and multinational networks of policing agencies. The marked escalation of the military into this is a more recent piece that is somewhat more controversial. One doesn’t have to be “in favor of the cartel” to ask questions about whether our military should be bombing boats or invading countries to ostensibly neutralize organizations that historically have been subject to policing operations.
To go back to the parallel… the public wasn’t in favor of Al Qaeda before 9/11 either, but there was a huge difference in the level of response the public was in favor of after. It turned from an intelligence monitoring level of response into an active military invasion of multiple countries.
The best part about bombing the boats is that the second strikes on them were war crimes, while the few survivors that were picked up... All ended up repatriated.
If they were all drug runners, why weren't they put on trial? Why was so much effort made to sink all the evidence? Why did an admiral resign, when told to do this?
Everybody involved, starting from the people pulling the trigger, to the people giving the orders should be getting a fair trial and a swift punishment for that little stint of piracy and murder.
But these people all act like there is no such thing as consequences.
> Anthropic makes some good stuff, so I'm confused why they even bother entertaining foregone conclusions.
I think it’s just because there’s enough people working there that figure that they will eventually make it work. No one needs Claude to run a vending machine so these public failures are interesting experiments that get everyone talking. Then, one day, (as the thinking often goes) they’ll be able to publish a follow up and basically say “wow it works” and it’ll have credibility because they previously were open about it not working, and comments like this will swing people to say things like “I used to be skeptical about but now!”
Now whether they actually get it working in the future because the model becomes better and they can leave it with this level of “free reign”, or just because they add enough constraints on it to change the problem so it happens to work… that we will find out later. I found it fascinating that they did a little bit of both in version 2.
And they can’t really lose here. There’s a clear path to making a successful vending machine, all you have to do is sell stuff for more than you paid for it. You can enforce that outright if needed outside an LLM. We’ve have had automated vending machines for over 50 years and none of them ask your opinion on what something should be priced. How much an LLM is involved in it is the only variable they need to play with. I suspect anytime they want they can find a way where it’s loosely coupled to the problem and provides somewhat more dynamism to an otherwise 50 year old machine. That won’t be hard. I suspect there’s no pressure on them to do that right now, nor will there be for a bit.
So in the meantime they can just play with seeing how their models do in a less constrained environment and learn what they learn. Publicly, while gaining some level of credibility as just reporting what happened in the process.
Tariffs in a rapidly growing and innovative industry always makes the country with lots of protectionism end up with less competitive products because they’ve removed the competitive pressures from everywhere else in the world.
We were left behind because we shelter our own car companies in a gentle cradle where they don’t have to compete. Both parties did this while saying they wanted to “level the playing field” but chose rates that were protectionist and made competitive products prohibitive not rates that actually created a level field.
We were left behind because we tried to protect our companies from facing the future. People in this country expect that one can stand on the shore of a beach and vote on whether the tide should go in or out, and that’s just not how the world works.
The role for protectionism is in the early stages of government subsidized and promoted industries, but it has to be matched by ruthless cutting of subsidy for the lower performers. And eventually there has to be competition with the global market to ensure performance.
Taking a mature industry and adding protectionism because of underperformance is a disaster on all fronts.
We were in the middle of a huge industrial investment buildout, absolutely untold of in modern history, for solar and batteries. But with the goal of undoing anything the prior administration has done, we are abandoning the good that a little protectionism could have for a growing battery and solar industry in the US.
We are toast without big changes. The world is leapfrogging us, and with every dozen GW of solar and batteries that China exports, it is permanently lowering demand for US natural gas and oil, which will eventually torpedo the industry, or leave the US with far higher energy prices than the rest of the world, both of which are disastrous for industry.
Yep, precisely. It really blows my mind to see so many people who normally support a free market suddenly forget (or ignore) what effect a tariff has on a market. Somehow it's now become a hammer and every problem is a nail.
I get that there are some real (or perceived) issues that are trying to be solved with these tariffs, but that doesn't magically make the realities of what tariffs do to a market go away. "Just do something" is a good way to get a "solution" that makes you worse off.
Tariffs are the worse sort of tax, massive amounts of deadweight loss, and a burden specifically on the pooorest. Perhaps that second part is why they are so popular.
When I was in China, I saw Teslas everywhere and iPhones too. It seems there are products that can still compete in China against strong domestic brands. The country hasn't really been hyper protected for a few years now. I mean, majority of the products from around the world are basically produced there so they are not even looking at tarrifs, besides that many industries no longer require joint ventures, much of Africa has tariff free access etc.
For B2B maybe (i don't know about "hyper", and services and software are outside of this protection for sure). For consumers/customers, China is freer than the US.
How are U.S. automakers "ruthlessly competing" in the global market otherwise? Can you name a single American car that competes well overseas? I know the F-150 did at one time but I don't know if that's even true anymore given that what was once Ford's workhorse has been turned into a luxury SUV for suburbanites cosplaying as blue collar workers occasionally.
Most American OEMs are now all but entirely in the SUV/pickup truck markets precisely because the Asian makes already kick the shit out of them in every other category. Several prominent brands have nothing on sale but SUVs right now! And they're STILL going broke.
Many arguing in favor of tarrifs note that it is not a free market. China is definitely playing to dominate with government assistance deep in the supply chain on up.
Not remotely. It's fair to point out that it exists, especially given the bailout, but China's sponsorship of their local manufacturing is a whole other level. We're talking direct subsidies and grants to OEMs, consumers getting trade in subsidies, huge tax rebates and exemptions, financing, infrastructure support, and long term industrial planning. Similar things exist in the US, but the biggest thing though is that it's stable and not capricious, unlike the current US administration. China's support is enormous, like $230 billion over 15 years, and it's ongoing, not some random one-offs, like cash for clunkers.
But our problems started before tariffs. If you look at the graph in the article, things started diverging around 2018. You can see all other countries taking off, leaving the US in the dust.
And the (small) US increase dropped even more around 2023.
But we were already behind.
EV infrastructure is terrible. I've been hoping to trade our second vehicle (that is ICE) in for an EV, so that both our vehicles are EV.
But until the infrastructure improves, we have no choice but to hold onto at least one ICE vehicle for anything longer than a daily commute.
And US makers can't sell EVs when most Americans are still dealing with range anxiety due to lack of infrastructure.
Needing an app for every different charger's owner is terrible. They're shooting their own feet with that one. It should be as simple as a gas station. Drive up, swipe credit card, and pump watts. (To their credit, some of them are now.) What I think is a bigger problem though is that the non-Tesla options just aren't well integrated. Tesla doesn't let you use Android/Apple integration, and they have their own navigation . This is annoying to some, but their built in navigation accounts for the battery level. It tells you how much charge you've got, how much you'll have when you get there, and if it's not enough, it guides you towards all possible charging options along your route, and,
knowing that, preconditions the battery for being charged when you get to the charger. This makes what infrastructure there is, way more useful. Because charging takes longer and is more sparse than gas stations, it's a necessary integration. My limited experience with non-tesla EVs says they don't have that level of integration, which is a whole problem, but I'd love to hear other's experiences there.
Yeah, 100% to this too. My wife won't even charge our EV away from home due to the issues we've run into with the various apps.
Not only are they all different, they sometimes just fail. And this is sometimes an app issue, but it's also often a charger issue. We had to literally drive an hour away, with only about 15% remaining, to get to a working charger one time, because we couldn't get either of the two chargers working at the place we often stop by.
Not only was that a big inconvenience, it was stressful not knowing whether we had enough charge to make it to our backup. If we didn't have a backup close enough, I'm not sure what we would've done.
> Needing an app for every different charger's owner is terrible. They're shooting their own feet with that one. It should be as simple as a gas station. Drive up, swipe credit card, and pump watts.
The EU now requires that for all new chargers installed. Like, this is a problem easily solved with regulation.
Consider making the kind of EVs that they would want to buy, even if they’re not the kind that fit some compliance profile or exist as the dominant “option”?
I’d not mind something akin to a modernized take on the Crown Vic, or something that has a decidedly American shape and non-luxury price tag to it.
What tariffs? Are you referring to EV subsidies and general protectionism like export restraints on Japan? Or blaming all of this on very recent changes?
The US didn't have electric vehicle protectionism until relatively recently? Not more than any other type of vehicles. The NHTSA and crash testing standards limit what cars can come to our shores, often to our detriment. Americans are dumbasses and have allowed government to way over-regulate the auto industry. Just look how much of the price of a car involves government mandates these days. It's obscene.
So...China. They have zero standards for anything. The cars probably do poorly in crashes. The industries making the batteries pollute the shit out of everything. The batteries probably don't last as long as indicated, probably half as many cells as was advertised. The tires are thinner, the glass is thinner, the paint is barely applied. Is this really what we want?
> They have zero standards for anything. The cars probably do poorly in crashes
That might have been true a decade+ ago, but in recent years, nearly every car coming from China makes it to the top of the Euro NCAP rankings [1]. The current top 10 standing for 2025 is:
1. Model 3 (DE)
2. Firefly / Nio
3. Smart #5
4. Lynk & Co 02
5. Polestar 3
6. Zeekr 7x
7. Togg T10x (TR)
8. IM IM6
9. Audi A6 (DE)
10. Voyah Courage
7/10 are from China. The list goes on with even cheaper models from BYD/Vinfast/etc outperforming most of the classic automakers. The Nio ET5 from 2023 is still one of the safest cars ever made, and it was evaluated right at the time the EU introduced much stricter safety regulations.
I've driven a MG ZS EV for a month a year or two ago and it was an equal in terms of "feel" to my current to VW id3, but way better equipped. The tyres are just normal bridgestones or michellins etc.
Can't comment on the paint or if they're lying about the battery capacity, but they genuinely seem like decent cars, at least the ones in the UK. I am sure there are cheaper-made ones for the domestic china market, but the export stuff seems good.
Too much of the debate is taken up by regulations are good vs bad. The focus should be on drafting regulations that make sense. The US doesn't allow small trucks due to EPA classification so didn't make any until this recent crop of EVs started popping up.
RE China: They also make the cheapest and best qualities Telsa which are shipped around the world. They can make the best and worst quality depending on your price point.
I think there's a balance to consider. Not having protectionism destroys industries locally which is why manufacturing in the US has declined significantly since the 80s.
You’ve made the same mistake the poster you’re replying to pointed out. Women in lesbian relationships have a high rate of having experienced domestic violence in their lives, and a study reported this which has then spread around the internet as a meme of sorts. For the vast majority of those same women, the same study reported that the domestic violence they experienced was in a previous relationship, with a man.
Most proposals for 9 bit bytes weren't for adopting 8 bits of data in a byte, they were to have 8 bits for data and 1 bit for something else, typically either error detection or differentiating between control/data. Very few folks argued for 9 bit bytes in the sense of having 9 bits of data per byte.
9 bit bytes never made significant headway because a 12.5% overhead cost for any of these alternatives is pretty wild. But there are folks and were folks then who thought it was worth debating and there certainly are advantages to it, especially if you look at use beyond memory storage. (i.e. closer to "Harvard" architecture separation between data / code and security implications around strict separation of control / data in applications like networking.)
It's worth noting that SECDED ECC memory adds about a 20% overhead, though it can correct single bit flips whereas 9-bit bytes with a parity bit can only detect (but not correct) bit flips which makes it useful in theory but not very useful in practice.
This article is not quite accurate like some of the others that have excitedly reported on this stretch a bit before it’s true. You cannot yet travel this all the way by passenger rail in either theory or practice. By only the narrowest of gaps: LCR ends in Vientiane and the train line to Bangkok terminates at Thanaleng outside town. The distance between them is not far, but it is not connected by rail with passenger service. I tried. I’ve ridden both the LCR, and the SRT service via the Thanaleng shuttle to Nong Khai prior to catching the sleeper to Bangkok. If there was a way to get from one station to another by rail between Thanaleng and Vientiane I would have done it!
This will change when the high speed rail to Bangkok is complete, but we’re not quite there yet.
If you need to change trains, you will need to walk (or travel by non-train) some distance in all cases. I wonder, is there a limit to the transfer distance, so that it still counts as traveling by rail only?
Which would be a problem with connexions through Paris, where (being a symbol or symptom or French centralism) most big train stations are terminus from one direction. Montparnasse, Gare de Lyon, Austerlitz, Gare de l'Est and Gare du Nord are connected via the subway network (or you can walk a 5 minutes stroll between the last two) but you can still get a connection 'through' Paris when buying tickets.
I’m not arguing it’s a restriction on TikTok’s speech or bytedance’s speech.
It’s a restriction on my speech. Telling me where I can publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling my software vendor what software they’re allowed to let me get? Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access?
The law doesn’t fine TikTok. The law fines the people who let me download an application I’ve chosen to use. At $5,000 per instance.
It’s not about TikTok’s rights being violated. It’s about mine, and yours.
No court in the land will agree with your interpretation. The first amendment protects speech, but it doesn't grant you the right to publish that speech wherever you want. If it did then Facebook couldn't ban people from its platform, for example.
The Supreme Court with its unanimous decision made it very very clear it’s not about freedom of speech, but about foreign adversary having access to data profile of 180 million US citizens. And believe in lawmakers argument of foreign adversary propaganda to those citizens.
Why do people on hacker news keep drudging up freedom of speech ad nauseum??
I wouldn't be surprised if the freedom of speech nonsense is an influence campaign by the PLA.
It is just such a ridiculous argument but if you repeat nonsense enough times, people start repeating it back as if it is real.
We never had to deal with this before because the WW2 generation was obviously not stupid enough to let the KGB publish children's books and Saturday morning cartoons inside the US and have a KGB influence campaign that says to ban the books/cartoons would be a free speech issue.
Obviously a non-starter. What you see with Tiktok is how completely infiltrated and corrupted things are in the US in 2025.
The unrestricted war from China started a long time ago and the IMO the US has already lost.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
― Sun Tzu
It's really about how the US gov is concerned that an app installed on half of all US cell phones is controlled by a company that is not 100 percent beholden to the US gov and stock market regulation, by a company that doesn't have to instantly respond to pressure from the Executive branch, could possibly refuse to instantly comply from pressure from US intelligence agencies, could refuse to comply with search requests from US law enforcement, and extensive lobbying from Facebook to cripple a competitor that Facebook ignored until it was too late.
It's not a free speech issue.
Given that the infra for serving US tiktok customers is in the United States(inside of Oracle Cloud), I am curious if Tiktok/bytedance responds to US law enforcement requests.
> the US gov is concerned that an app installed on half of all US cell phones is controlled by a company that is not 100 percent beholden to the US gov
You have it backwards. The US gov is concerned that an app installed on half of all US cell phones is controlled by a company that is 100 percent beholden to the Chinese gov.
Did you read the opinion? It did its analysis as requiring some level of scrutiny because of the free speech implications under intermediate (and in Sofomayor’s concurrence strict) scrutiny. It held the national security concern outweighed the free speech concern but it absolutely did not say it was relevant in the analysis.
“ At the same time, a law targeting a foreign adversary’s control over a communications platform is in many ways different in kind from the regulations of non-expressive activity that we have subjected to First Amendment scrutiny”
And the opinion talks about foreign adversary, those exact words, at least 30 times. It mentioned freedom of speech twice
Show me where it is an infringement of your 1st amendment right to a private platform? You’re free to criticize the government however you see fit, but you’re not guaranteed the right to a microphone and stage that isn’t yours. There are plenty of other communication channels you can use to express yourself. Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed by being denied access to TikTok, just as the far right isn’t having their 1st amendment rights being infringed by being denied to use BlueSky as their platform.
> You’re free to criticize the government however you see fit, but you’re not guaranteed the right to a microphone and stage that isn’t yours.
So if I wanted to hold a speech how corrupt the government is and then the government passed a law that a PA supplier isn't allowed to sell me a Microphone or speakers, that wouldn't infringe my first amendment right because I don't have a right to a microphone or a stage? (Im not American so I don't have any first amendment rights anyways but for arguments sake.)
It's the PA supplier would be in a better position to argue that their rights are being violated. Especially if a single customer was targeted because of their political views / protected characteristics etc.
The problem with the TikTok scenario is that no specific group is being targeted for restraint. And the government does have the right to regulate trade. E.g. there are embargoed countries, export controls, etc. The fact that you can't sell raw milk across state lines is different from a hypothetical restriction on selling raw milk to, say, people named Todd.
No, it wouldn’t. Congress could pass a law that we’re not going to import microphones and speakers from China. The Constitution explicitly gives them the power to do that. You could then purchase them from any one of a number of other companies and your speech is unaffected.
Look, my point is that the first amendment is in play here and it’s not ridiculous to suggest a free speech analysis is required to hold the law as constitutional or not, which is what the court did and what reasonable people can agree or disagree around to what extent that speech should or shouldn’t be protected. (I personally think, as I stated that the free speech harm is a stronger case from the users who have now been restrained in their ability to use the platform and software distributors who are now restrained from distributing specific software than it is as applied to TikTok where the legislation is content neutral and so the free speech analysis is less relevant.) I’m not even claiming that this law should be found unconstitutional, just that there are free speech issues to adjudicate and the less obvious ones are probably more relevant than the one people are citing where the restraint is content neutral.
Your comment however draws a weird parallel later on though but first let’s take a moment here:
> Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed by being denied access to TikTok
That is what the court found but it opens some interesting questions that really do have impacts.
I would bet that you would find a law that says op-eds can only be published in an approved list of venues to be clearly wrong, yet it is equally just determining venue and not content.
As would a law which banned foreign ownership of venues while also introducing a regulatory scheme for domestic ownership stakes of sensitive industries and defined news and commentary as a nationally security sensitive industry. (Which this law essentially does for certain types of apps.)
So at some point a law can be “content neutral” and about access to venue not content but I bet almost any reasonable person would agree it’s an unreasonable restraint.
Now for a situation you draw the above as a parallel with but is very different:
> just as the far right isn’t having their 1st amendment rights being infringed by being denied to use BlueSky as their platform.
Bluesky can do whatever they want but if the government were to get involved in defining regulations around which users could use BlueSky… yes absolutely I would expect it to be thrown out on first amendment grounds and expect it’s a significantly stronger case than any of the examples above.
It’s a much weaker and almost irrelevant case when directed at a non-governmental organization in which some folks are using “free speech” as an argument over what entities which are not enjoined from almost any actions may do with their own venues. But yeah, if it was the government telling BlueSky who to ban? You bet that’s got first amendment implications and I’d expect a court to review it under strict scrutiny. (And I wouldn’t expect it to survive.)
> I would bet that you would find a law that says op-eds can only be published in an approved list of venues to be clearly wrong, yet it is equally just determining venue and not content.
That's a poor analogy, because allowlists and blocklists are not the same thing and do not have the same effects. The government only allowing a list of certain approved media outlets would be an obvious 1A infringement. The government blocking certain media outlets is not.
It’s not meant to say they’re the same thing, it’s meant to demonstrate clearly that venue restrictions even when content neutral can impose restrictions on speech and those restrictions must be balanced and scrutinized appropriately under our system.
I think that’s a huge difference, yes. And about what apps my phone is able to download, and what servers it is able to access.
Another huge difference is broadcasting is about usage of a shared resource and has always had regulations on who is allowed to do what. They don’t ban RT from setting up their own venue or printing a newspaper. RT and other outlets are able to operate in the US and people are able to chose to watch them.
Graffiti laws are also evaluated under heightened scrutiny due to free speech implications. A law having an impact on free speech does not mean it never holds, but it must be analyzed in that context. Here’s an example: https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2...
> Graffiti laws are also evaluated under heightened scrutiny due to free speech implications
Graffiti bans are unquestionably constitutional. Graffiti laws that regulate the content are not.
Telling people where they can speak is precedented, legal and necessary. Telling people what they can say is against the principles of free speech; the government doing so is illegal.
I get that you believe that's what's happening, but I can't imagine any US court agreeing with you.
The law (and the US constitution) does not guarantee any particular platform for your speech. It just guarantees that you can speak, and courts have interpreted that to mean that you need to have some reasonable platform, and that laws can't put an unreasonable burden on your ability to speak on some platform.
As an aside:
> Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access?
The law does not target internet providers at all. They are not required to block traffic to *.tiktok.com or any of their IP addresses.
> It’s a restriction on my speech. Telling me where I can publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling my software vendor what software they’re allowed to let me get? Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access?
You are being ridiculous now. None of those are forms of speech.
And restrictions on your ability to perform certain actions is literally what being in a society is about. If you don't like it then find another society. Just like you can find another ISP, place to publish your video or platform to use apps you want to use.
Whether you think it’s ridiculous or not, restrictions on distribution of software being a violation of US free speech rights has been an established part of US case law for around three decades now: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...
I'm skeptical that Bernstein vs DOJ would apply, to a [foreign-controlled] company that is not publishing their algorithm, on the idea that allowing their [trade-secret] code to control how hundreds of millions of people interact with each other is somehow free speech on ByteDance's part.
The foreign-controlled part in particular implicates Congress's obvious and explicit power to regulate international trade, and it seems obvious to me that there would be something less than strict scrutiny applied to alleged violations of the 1A when that Congressional power is in play.
Yes, most of the court felt intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard in part because of the reasons you outlined.
(I also agree that this is a different case, I only point to Bernstein because it is a clear part of case law which states that software distribution is and can be a free speech issue and restraints on it would be expected to be evaluated with some level of scrutiny.)
I also feel you are being a bit absurdist fwiw. I am know the be a principled devils advocate sometimes, so I'm reading you as that, otherwise your position as an American makes very little sense to me
The justices on the Supreme Court analyzed the constitutionality of this law under a free speech basis. The Per Curiam opinion of the court suggested the correct standard was intermediate scrutiny as an abridgment of free speech. Justice Sotomayor suggested in her concurrence that strict scrutiny (the highest standard) was appropriate.
They concluded that these regulations were okay at those levels of scrutiny, but it is not absurd or ridiculous to analyze these as forms of speech, and indeed, our courts do so.
That said, just because there is a conflict with freedom of speech doesn’t prevent all government regulation, it just means the laws involved must pass an elevated level of scrutiny. That applies here, for multiple reasons, and with multiple parties.
Source code you can argue is a form of speech versus a packaged product.
Not that the case is relevant because restrictions on the availability of products is well established under the law. I can’t just buy nuclear weapons for example.
>"If you don't like it then find another society. "
Isn't use of any non-violent means to advocate one's belief to change the society is the whole point of the democracy? Your point is rather very totalitarian.
I’m not, for what it’s worth. I’m arguing that I think the free speech case is stronger for the users and software distributors who are enjoined from the platform or distributing certain software applications than it is for the platform whose ownership but not content or speech is being directly regulated. (The law doesn’t fine TikTok it fines the people providing services to TikTok. Their speech rights may be more relevant in this case.)
I also see why people are interpreting my comment to mean that because it’s a restriction on my speech it’s not constitutional because that’s how people usually act on the Internet. But I don’t and didn’t. What I said was it was a restriction on my speech and I believe that’s more of interesting case than the restriction on TikTok’s speech. The ramification of that is that the courts would adjudicate the free speech restriction at an appropriate scrutiny level and determine whether that restriction is allowable. As we all know, some restrictions are allowable and constitutional. Others aren’t.
It’s not unreasonable, wild, or strange to point out that there’s a restriction on speech here, and to point out that conflict needed to be resolved to determine constitutionality.
Most are handled at the district level, if the court felt there was no legal issue at play, they would have denied cert. Their opinion did end up being per curiam which suggests the court feels clearly about the case, but does not suggest they never felt there was an issue worth arguing.
> What I said was it was a restriction on my speech
I don't agree that it is, though. The restriction is on where you cannot put your speech[0], not on the speech itself. If there was nowhere that you could put your speech (or if the available avenues became much much much smaller in reach), then I would say that your speech is being restricted.
But that's not the case here. You can publish that same speech on YouTube, Facebook, Threads, Instagram, Twitter, and a host of others where you can reach more or less the same audience you can reach on TikTok.
You also mention elsewhere about not being permitted to download a particular app onto your phone (and/or that a service provider isn't allowed to provide it to you). That just isn't a free-speech issue at all. And besides, if you have an Android phone, you absolutely still can install the TikTok app on the phone, because Android allows sideloading. If you have an iPhone and can't sideload, then your beef is with Apple, not with the US government. Beyond that, www.tiktok.com still works just fine, and will still work fine even if/when it ends up hosted on infra owned by non-US companies.
[0] Note that I did not say it is a restriction on where you can put your speech; it is a specific restriction on where you cannot, which I think is an important distinction.
It’s a restriction either way. Whether it’s a reasonable one or one that meets elevated scrutiny is a separate second question. Your points are arguing that question and are reasonable context for that debate.
The government isn’t banning TikTok, the law only requires a change in ownership. The current owners are choosing to performatively shut down in an attempt to bully their way through that requirement
The US need not restrict any of your speech. You’re not directly communicating with any of TikTok’s users when you post to it, TikTok is. In the Internet age, even apparent one-way communication is handshakes upon handshakes. Consider this: You’re free to send whatever messages you want to ByteDance. They’re just not allowed to reply (or have anyone reply on their behalf). The app is a useless binary blob if it can’t set up a TLS connection.
If a "moral stance" is one you only hold when it applies to other people's decisions, it's illegitimate and those stances have a name we give them: hypocrisy.
Also. Comparing support for MAID with defendant rights is a false equivalence. The correct equivalence there is whether or not someone still favors criminal rights if they were personally on trial. Not someone who personally becomes less magnanimous to criminals they are personally affected by. The equivalence the other direction would be asking loved ones about someone else's decision to undergo MAID, and asking them subset of folks around them who aren't ready to let them go yet how they feel about MAID. (Though in both cases of MAID and not wanting the wrong person to be thrown in jail for a criminal action as a victim, I suspect the drop in support is less than you think it is.)
> a "moral stance" is one you only hold when it applies to other people's decisions, it's illegitimate and those stances have a name we give them: hypocrisy
Hypocrisy doesn’t make the moral stance wrong, it just means humans are weak and sinful.
it's not as simple, but sometimes is - as anything in life. You might not be networked well (for whatever the reason) and then you have to cast a wide net or go through hiring agencies to pull in candidates.. it's still going to be an unknown group.
They’re not options, they’re grants of stock units which vest over time. A unit of stock is a share granted and vesting at its full price, not an option to buy stock at some price later.
While startups use options, most large public tech companies typically do not.
I think you’re getting tripped up by some specific wording and managing to miss the point the poster was making. The point should be taken seriously even if imprecisely articulated. While most folks are against the cartels, there’s a much wider range of belief on how much they warrant government or military intervention and to what degree we should be spending various resources on them. The historical state of play was(is?) that cartels are criminal organizations which are generally a policing matter that has escalated to specialized policing agencies and multinational networks of policing agencies. The marked escalation of the military into this is a more recent piece that is somewhat more controversial. One doesn’t have to be “in favor of the cartel” to ask questions about whether our military should be bombing boats or invading countries to ostensibly neutralize organizations that historically have been subject to policing operations.
To go back to the parallel… the public wasn’t in favor of Al Qaeda before 9/11 either, but there was a huge difference in the level of response the public was in favor of after. It turned from an intelligence monitoring level of response into an active military invasion of multiple countries.
reply