hndamien
Your comment inspired me to upgrade it to 4.5 because it did have that AI tinny quality. https://suno.com/s/tbZlkBL7XeLVuuN0
It sounds better but has lost some magic.
Here is the original comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39997706
In that spirit, from the same “artist” here is your comment - https://suno.com/s/AumsIqrIovVhT0c9
And
https://suno.com/s/YGlpHptX6yXJVpHq
Not sure which I like more.
https://music.apple.com/au/album/breath-of-the-cosmos/175227...
https://open.spotify.com/track/0mJoJ0XiQZ8HglUdhWhg2F?si=tID...
I built a player’s player voting tool. If you play sports, enjoy!
There's a fundamental difference between regulated privileges that can physically harm/kill people (drinking, smoking, driving) and basic rights of communication and information access that democracies depend on.
Your government ID verification example actually highlights the key problem - whether it's platforms or government holding the data, you're creating a permanent link between real identity and every comment, like, share and interaction. That's not at all like showing ID at a bottle shop - it's more like having to show ID before every conversation you have at the pub, with someone keeping a permanent record. This verification applies to everyone, not just kids. In any case, they should not have their access to information restricted. Currently, X is the most legitimate source of real news with Community notes, where legacy media has completed failed - WMD, Lab Leak, etc. Etc.
Think about what that means for: - Whistleblowers exposing corruption - People discussing sensitive health issues - Anyone criticizing powerful institutions - Workers organizing or discussing workplace issues - People exploring political views different from their family/employer - Activists trying to create positive change
The "conflict of interest" argument cuts both ways - governments have a clear interest in expanding surveillance capabilities. Many of us opposing this genuinely care about preserving democratic freedoms, not corporate profits.
I get the desire to protect kids (I'm a parent too), but this is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We can push for better parental controls, algorithmic transparency, and targeting of specific harmful behaviors without compromising the anonymous speech that democracies need to function.
Surveillance creep has real effects on public discourse, and this is classic authoritarianism wrapped in “think of the children”.
The fact that an overwhelming amount of the 15,000 responses in 24hr oppose this makes your humble opinion that you want it in a tiny minority.