News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

Jensson

The law is assumed to be in line with "protect America", it isn't up for ICE to decide that. If you think current laws are not protecting America then vote to change them.

However what ICE gets to decide is what cases to prioritize, they don't get to decide who to exonerate but their limited resources means that they prioritize those who are bigger dangers. Still if they had infinite resources they would take everyone.

I agree, but that is not for ICE to decide. Democrats should have fixed this a long time ago, USA isn't a one party state so if Democrats wanted to fix this they could have. But they too didn't want undocumented immigrants to gain full rights, it is very useful to have abusable second class citizens around for the upper classes.

So the problem here isn't ICE, it is Trump and his politics. ICE following the law and doing their job is the wrong target.

> Most prior presidents had good sense enough to understand that mass deportation is a major foot-gun, politically and economically. And kind of morally monstrous.

If they recognized this is an issue just add a way for upstanding undocumented immigrants to become documented immigrants, problem solved.

Instead they preserved the status quo where they can use ICE to hammer their enemies, that is a very bad thing. ICE taking everyone is the only way, it robs it of its power.

Well the issue is private corporations selling data willingly is not bound by the fourth amendment. So just assume whatever any US corporation knows about you is also known by the US government because they will sell your data for a penny.
Deporting people is "enforcing immigration law".
Enforcing immigration law is their mission which includes deporting those who aren't allowed to be in the country. So yes it is their mission.
Every time the police gets to choose whether to apply a law or not you add more power to the police, I don't want the police to be more powerful.

Anyone who don't say yes just wants a police state, the reason your American police is so dangerous and powerful is because they have these choices and can arrest you for a lot of things that people don't normally get arrested for.

So yes, they should do that. That you think they shouldn't is exactly why the American police is so horrible.

Attacking agents of a democratically elected government makes you the bad guy.

If you want to change things then vote to change it, don't attack the people doing the work that just makes things worse. These "protests" are on the same level as the people threatening and blocking abortion centers, don't do that it just makes you a menace even if you believe it is a good cause.

Deporting everyone who isn't in the country legally is their mission, executing people is not.

You can argue about how they should go about deporting people, but them deporting everyone even those without a criminal record is their intended purpose.

You should have a separation of money and politics, similar to separation of church and state. USA fails at both, the state is way too influenced by both religion and money. It should be illegal for churches or money to tell people what to vote for, it is in many other countries.

Without that you will always run into these sort of issues. The problem isn't wealth inequality, the problem is that wealth buys political power.

You do realize more money was spent on the party opposing Trump? Money can lose. Money apparently doesn't like the right wing but the right wins anyway without money.
73% of dentists own their own practice, so you are wrong.
> Quality indie titles come out all the time.

Depends on how you define high quality, indie games with quality similar to Hollow Knight do not come out all the time.

It just is much harder to have that level of polish and amount of content without a bigger well oiled team, so almost no indie games reaches that level.

Looks at least partially organic to me, the guy is very cute and looking at his youtube video it is full of female commenters and has 2.7m subscribers.

So he is a celebrity and not just a politician, probably a lot of women are in love with him.

> The moving the goalposts here is people saying it has to outperform humans on literally every task to be AGI

You don't have to outperform humans to run a business, nobody said you have to outperform humans on everything. Humans can run businesses, so AGI should be able to as well.

As long as humans outperform AI on a lot of tasks we have yet to reach AGI, and the easiest way to see that is that business still hires humans to do knowledge work and businesses are still lead by humans.

As long as you don't see thousands of AI businesses that are run entirely without humans people will reject the idea that they are AGI. People could easily do that today if these models were AGI since its not hard to put them in a loop and tell them to run a business, so we know when that threshold is reached.

And if the AI isn't general enough to handle every part of a business well then you will not convince people that its AGI.

This hasn't changed from 10 years ago, this level was always what people imagined about the future of AI.

Re:Every AI model has the same "controversial" take on humans on Thursday October 22, 2026 @06:47PM (#50202158)
> if you asked a sampling of humans the same question I wonder if it would come out the same way. How would you explain the difference?

If you asked a sampling of humans what an AI's most controversial opinion about us is it would be very similar. Or, to be more specific, if you asked a sampling of science fiction writers that question it would be very similar, because that is what the AI training data is based on.

The people who wrote a lot about a topic is who the AI mimics. So the people who wrote a lot about AI is therefore the people who the AI mimics when asked about AI.

Re:Artificial intelligence is capitalism's final destination on Friday October 16, 2026 @11:53AM (#50119959)
Earth was also running out of carbon dioxide, was basically none left when we humans appeared. It used to be so much carbon dioxide in the air making it easy for plants to grow, but when its all buried underground not much complex things can evolve, the earth has almost never been as life poor as when humans appeared.

That puts a timer on any planet as well, without intelligent life all the building stones for life will keep getting buried and then life will basically end because life doesn't find a way to dig it up from thousands of meters underground.

Re:America Didn't Lose Its Rare Earth Industry. It Sold It on Wednesday October 14, 2026 @09:12PM (#50097903)
> But most people are not like that. In most issues, they are exposed to multiple viewpoints they could plausibly adopt. The choices they make are ultimately their own

Yes, but most people also come to the same pretty naive conclusions separately and then it looks like they just copy each other. It is pretty hard to tell the difference between low effort thinking and parrots.

Re:America Didn't Lose Its Rare Earth Industry. It Sold It on Wednesday October 14, 2026 @08:57PM (#50097803)
I'm not sure how those things means China isn't evil? Who said the US wasn't evil?

This isn't a contest, both can be evil.

Re:America Didn't Lose Its Rare Earth Industry. It Sold It on Wednesday October 14, 2026 @08:09PM (#50097431)
> Why is China evil exactly? And why are they only evil since they started mathing/outpacing US financial dominance?

You don't know about Tiananmen Square massacre? People thought China was evil even when they were dirt poor after their failed communist experiment.

You probably meant "threat" here instead of evil, and then it is obvious why nobody saw them as a threat when they were poor and weak, but now that they are big and strong people see them as a threat since they haven't exactly left their evil ways behind.

That already happens though, typical policemen are much more tracked by the police than even criminals are so they have the least privacy in every scenario. You never get more privacy in the same situation if you were an on duty cop instead of a civilian.
That is not very many cases considering there are millions of stalkers in the US alone. That is like saying police shouldn't have cars since they sometimes kill people in car accidents.
Re:Why Were Victorian Elites So Effective? on Thursday October 08, 2026 @06:54PM (#50013583)
I see your point, yeah they would manage without others going in and bossing them around. They had everything in place to transition to a modern society unlike some of the less developed parts of the world, so Europeans meddling with them didn't really help.

They would likely follow a similar path as Russia or Japan, Russia is pretty far from western Europe already so ideas took longer to get there so they modernized much later, and we can see how that turned out. Russia being so oppressive and rotten were very vulnerable to any sort of modern ideology and fell to communism, that sort of transition was inevitable for these countries, Russia tried to delay it and it was forced upon them, Japan saw the writing on the wall and made the transition deliberately etc.

Re:Why Were Victorian Elites So Effective? on Thursday October 08, 2026 @04:06PM (#50011352)
That they lost control to some guys that had to travel around entire Africa to get there shows how incompetent and backwards thinking they were. It would be impossible to conquer 100m happy and productive people with just 1000 people even if the 1000 had a bit better guns, especially since the 100m happy and productive people easily could just reproduce the new modern guns.

That India and China were so easy to conquer for Europeans shows the rot in those societies, both in refusing to adopting the superior European technology and by continuing to oppress their own people to such a degree that their people didn't really care much about a foreign power replacing their old tyrants.

Re:Gemini 4 Argon on Thursday October 01, 2026 @05:26AM (#49919564)
> Wait 1-2 months, Anthropic will come up with a shinier model and Googel will look obsolete again. I too struggle to see the moat - yes Google is able to serve their own A.I traffic but as far as I can see - at a loss. Prices keep going down because open source models. We'll see.

Google makes AI profits, its in their breakdowns. And Google has been releasing models every few weeks now, they have a faster iteration pace than the competitors, so they fixed that, they wont be behind in coding models any longer.

There is plenty transmission capacity, the issue is EU regulations not allowing Sweden to keep prices low in the south.
Re:Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here on Friday August 28, 2026 @07:01AM (#49476904)
> there is very much a plausible world in which only a small handful of consolidated bank accounts exist so long as those bank accounts can reasonably control the monopoly of violence.

Capitalism means separation of violence from capital, if capital controls violence then its not capitalism because there can only be a free market when guns that can't be bribed with money protects it.

For example in communism capital control violence, that is why its so bad, since when capital controls violence it no longer need to produce good results to thrive, it can just use force, which is how every communist regime acted.

In anarchy capital also control violence, so its not capitalism, since without a state to prevent capital from hiring thugs to force others into submission you don't have a free market, whoever has the most thugs wins.

Re:Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here on Friday August 28, 2026 @06:52AM (#49476851)
> It probably does work good however Switzerland got dangerously close to "something happening" this year with the 10M referendum. And it was very close, with major parts of the country showing an absurd level of ignorance

Switzerland already voted against immigration once before in 2014, EU punished them for it and they walked it back quickly. No larger catastrophe happened.

Re:Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here on Friday August 28, 2026 @06:38AM (#49476765)
Why wouldn't it work if Switzerland was poorer? Are poor people dumber and make stupid decisions if you give them direct democracy, or what do you mean?

I don't see what would break if for example Netherlands copied Swiss direct democracy.

Older »