If the thread was deleted by a mod or flagged in the time between starting a comment and hitting "reply", you'd see a message that "you're not allowed to post a comment here" or similar language. Nothing to do with you, it's the state of the thread you're commenting on.
It's really remarkable to me how a certain subset of American ideologues can look out at the rest of the democratic nations - all of them - and call them authoritarian regimes where the citizens have "dust" for brains.
It's particularly poignant nowadays to see any American citizens painting the rest of the western nations as authoritarian.
Look at those libtard euros! They'll put up with anything their government tells them to - mandated vacation time, sick days, health care, work-life balance. But not me, I'm a FREE THINKER. I have RIGHTS, like the RIGHT to get fired out of nowhere for no reason, or the RIGHT to lose my health insurance if I lose my job. Thank god there are no AUTHORITARIANS here in AMERICA where people are FREE to get SHOT IN THE STREET for DRIVING THEIR CARS or TAKING A PICTURE or BEARING ARMS WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BUT THAT ONE GUY DID IT AND DESERVED TO GET MURDERED THIS ONE TIME.
Just a slight correction in case anyone is reading this who loses their job:
In most states, if you lose your job your income is now $0 and you will be eligible for Medicaid and free medical care. Immediately go apply and see a social worker if you lose your job - it could be life saving!
Really sorry in advance, but I thought this whole HN thread could use a bit of positivity. I turned your satire into a mad-lib and asked AI to fill it in in a happy way.
But not me, I’m a dreamer. I have gifts, like the courage to kindle hope, or the patience to lose
track of time if I am laughing with friends. Thank god there are no
frowns here in this sun-drenched park where people are gathering to get
together for picnics or music or stargazing.
1. As soon as the roads are all paying best-possible-use property tax for the space they take up and it's completely paid by automobiles, in addition to all maintenance, we should try to proportionally assign dedicated bicycle infrastructure costs toward bicycle users, now and anticipated.
User pay formerly-public-infrastructure is what I identified as libertarian. Would you also advocate for residents of high crime areas to pay more taxes for police coverage?
"User pay" is typically associated with regressive per-use taxes. It's perfectly compatible with socialism to ensure the cost of the road system is applied to only automobile users in a progressive manner. Relatedly, Finland moving violation fines are not a fixed fee and are proportional to income: https://nri.today/wealthy-speedsters-beware-finlands-million... Stop thinking "cars=default", they are not.
Legally criminal actions are violations against the state, which is why a prosecutor decides whether to file charges and does not need the consent of the victim to do so. We already have what you suggest with civil law and private security.
It's pure pedantry to distinguish between "user pay" and "progressive fees" based on usage. You're advocating for private payments on public infrastructure, it doesn't make it socialism just because it's infrastructure you disapprove of.
Oil and gas subsidies in Canada dwarf whatever pittance is tossed out to renewable energy. People getting an interest free loan for rooftop solar may be well off (they own houses), but I guarantee the CEO of TC Energy is doing even better.
There's a lot of good arguments in this thread about incentives: extremely convincing about why current incentives lead to exactly this behaviour, and also why creating better incentives is a very hard problem.
If we grant that good carrots are hard to grow, what's the argument against leaning into the stick? Change university policies and processes so that getting caught fabricating data or submitting a paper with LLM hallucinations is a career ending event. Tip the expected value of unethical behaviours in favour of avoiding them. Maybe we can't change the odds of getting caught but we certainly can change the impact.
This would not be easy, but maybe it's more tractable than changing positive incentives.
the harsher the punishment, the more due process required.
i don't think there are any AI detection tools that are sufficiently reliable that I would feel comfortable expelling a student or ending someone's career based on their output.
for example, we can all see what's going on with these papers (and it appears to be even worse among ICLR submissions). but it is possible to make an honest mistake with your BibTeX. Or to use AI for grammar editing, which is widely accepted, and have it accidentally modify a data point or citation. There are many innocent mistakes which also count as plausible excuses.
in some cases further investigation maybe can reveal a smoking gun like fabricated data, which is academic misconduct whether done by hand or because an AI generated the LaTeX tables. punishments should be harsher for this than they are.
Are you saying a "Canadian Terrorist" murdered Nijjar? The article you link says nothing about any country (except India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) disputing Canada's claim.
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement is not a significant movement in India. I have plenty of connections with Sikhs and Sikhism in India. Apart from a very tiny minority of people, who quickly set off to Canada, this movement does not exist in India. They are courted by Canadian parliamentarians, which included Trudeau.
If it's such an insignificant movement, it's curious why India saw fit to assassinate a Canadian on Canadian soil. A claim that as near as I can tell only India and its surrogates (such as yourself, it seems) dispute.
Also, the veracity of a claim does not depend on who is making it or who is disputing it. The accusing investigation agency has do a proper investigation and submit proofs and ask for extradition.
Yes, Canadian investigators should have gone to India to investigate and build a case against the Indian government. That would have worked well.
Several countries examined Canada's evidence and found it satisfactory. Your government conducted an extra judicial execution of a Canadian citizen on Canadian territory. You are the baddies, even if your government assures you of the opposite.
You are resistant to all the actual information I have provided you. Your terrorists are killing more of your own citizens. But, I suppose Indian government should straightaway accept guilt for all such murders including that of Harjeet Singh Dhadda and an upstanding citizen Harpreet Singh Uppal. Mark Carney is cosying up to the same Indian government. I wonder which strategy of Carney will work on you: supply kool-aid or pretend there was never any problem. I'm betting on the latter.
Yeah, I think the people need a way to eject people without waiting for 2-6 years (or never for the supreme court). it needs to be a high bar, but if we use the same 75% state ratification to start up an impeachment process, it might keep some pressure under people who otherwise feel like they can run rampant.
It did. An average of 48 percent of Supreme Court rulings from 2010 to 2018 were unanimous. Another eight percent were nearly unanimous. That happens even though justices were appointed by different parties and the issues under discussion are normally complex and contentious. Clearly they can't be a partisan body if they so regularly agree despite having different politics.
But it's not clear how long that can be sustained now. The recent appointment of KBJ takes it in that direction. She has stated in court opinions that are themselves clearly unconstitutional, like:
"Having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the Ph.Ds and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States… These issues should not be in presidential control."
A SCOTUS judge should not be concerned with the "best interest of the citizens". That's not her job, that's the job of politicians. Making decisions on such a basis renders SCOTUS merely another House, but one that considers itself above the others in the power rankings. And what she's asserting is that the President should have no power over the executive branch, which is what Democrats want but isn't what the constitution says.
Not really. SCOTUS is mostly the same people. Eight years ago was 2018, people were whipping themselves into a frenzy about Trump, not much different to today.
The free market as described is imaginary. Large companies due to their size hold a lot of power, and can use a mix of regulatory capture and monopolies to make better ideas financially infeasible to bring to light.
reply