> Democrats are secretly communists who want to communist genocide you
Isn't this just how politics looks now? The Republicans say that, the Democrats say the Republicans are secretly nazis who want to nazi genocide you, both parties contain millions of people so both can point to some extremists on the other side saying something shocking and then they both go back to trying to get 51% of the votes so they can be the ones picking your pocket this year.
edit: It's beautiful how the two immediate replies to this post are, respectively, "it's not both sides because only the Democrats are actually Marxists" and "it's not both sides because only the Republicans are actually Fascists".
When things are this lopsided, both-sidesing is indistinguishable from sweeping for the bad one.
Want to prove me wrong? Show me the last time Kamala Harris engaged in guillotine rhetoric (which is the left-coded equivalent). Point me to what you think the Democratic equivalent of the ICE killings are. Show me dead protestors and stifling of legal proceedings to hold them accountable. Show me Democratic fraud on the scale of the $40B swap line to Argentina, pumping and dumping the American economy by announcing on-again-off-again war, creating a board of peace / putting yourself in charge / giving it $10B, and shitcoin rugpulls.
> both-sidesing is indistinguishable from sweeping for the bad one.
That implies there is a good one. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and even how to measure lesser is extremely subjective.
> Show me the last time Kamala Harris engaged in guillotine rhetoric
Harris campaigned on saying as little as possible. Several Democrats have called for Trump's assassination. Some (like Stacey Plaskett) quite directly, others (including Harris) have implied or joked about it. Someone worked the nutters into a sufficient frenzy to attempt it with Trump and to murder Charlie Kirk.
> Point me to what you think the Democratic equivalent of the ICE killings are.
Around 3 million people die in the US per year, on the order of 6000 of those are in prisons, ICE was on the order of 30.
The media focuses on that because Trump campaigns on immigration, not because it's a significant proportion of the people the government kills. Significantly more people die when Democrats get paid off by the AMA to limit the number of medical residency slots, or impede housing construction even in states their party fully controls resulting in homelessness and poverty-inducing high rents.
> Show me dead protestors
Are you referring to the unarmed woman killed by the capitol police in 2021?
> stifling of legal proceedings to hold them accountable
Biden pardoned a lot of people in his own party.
The government failing to hold itself accountable is the default. Most of the time they don't even initiate proceedings against themselves when they're committing a crime, and hide behind qualified immunity etc. if someone wants to sue them.
> Show me Democratic fraud on the scale of the $40B swap line to Argentina, pumping and dumping the American economy by announcing on-again-off-again war, creating a board of peace / putting yourself in charge / giving it $10B, and shitcoin rugpulls.
The Inflation Reduction Act was a trillion dollars. The federal budget is multiple trillions every year and a double digit percentage of it is corruption every year, regardless of which party is in office.
In general it seems like you want to point to specific things that represent a fractional percentage of the overall problem and ignore the systemic bipartisan corruption and government unaccountability that has been the status quo for generations.
The Democrats have a very similar platform to the Republicans (especially around ICE and Israel, both of which Harris vowed to continue supporting). Trump is uniquely incompetent though, which if you believe in accelerationism may or may not be a good thing. For instance Democrats have long yearned to go to war with Iran, now Trump did it, but he did it in such an incompetent and rushed manner that it's led to US bases throughout the Middle East being destroyed and abandoned. That's a good thing that came out of a bad situation.
I'm not trying to be combative, just honest. Here is Harris saying Iran is our greatest adversary (sorry for the Zionist source). Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton have also been very vocal about wanting to attack Iran. Clinton actually recently praised Trump!
All five actual Marxist-Leninists in the US appreciate your attention. Now let's list the actual fascists. Symmetry is beautiful but sometimes it's just not there.
Exactly: the tear-down-the-system left barely exists outside twitch and college campuses, while the far right has the presidency and majority control of the Republican party. These are not the same.
> edit: It's beautiful how the two immediate replies to this post are, respectively, "it's not both sides because only the Democrats are actually Marxists" and "it's not both sides because only the Republicans are actually Fascists".
I don't think we should pat ourselves on the back too hard for milquetoast takes devoid of any specifics.
(also I think you misread the responses to your post)
> All five actual Marxist-Leninists in the US appreciate your attention. Now let's list the actual fascists. Symmetry is beautiful but sometimes it's just not there.
"There are five actual Marxist-Leninists you need to be paying attention to in the US but we can't even name one relevant actual fascist, so the symmetry isn't there."
That was my initial reading, and it's because I've encountered numerous people who sincerely believe that. Using sarcasm in posts subject to Poe's Law is a good way to be ambiguous.
This is honestly a meaningless cliche. There is a bottled water company called Liquid Death, is that a reason to expect their product to be more hazardous than competitors? A lot of free software has traditionally used self-deprecating names, should we expect them to be bad as a result? How about when something is called Truth Social?
My rule is, "if you have to say, it isn't". If the tofu were really yummy and tasty, you wouldn't need to say so on the package. (Some years ago, when Americans' idea of uses for tofu was mostly as a salad topping, Texas had a tofu brand that said "yummy and tasty!" on the package.)
"Truth Social"? Probably a cesspool of lies. "Liquid Death"? Well, I would have expected it to be full of alcohol, capacsin, and/or cinnamon, not bottled water...
If they gradually increase production capacity then prices stay high for 10+ years (or for as long as it takes for demand to crash) because a gradual increase in production takes that long for them to add enough capacity for current demand.
If they add enough capacity to meet current demand quickly then if demand crashes they still have billions of dollars in loans used to build capacity for demand that no longer exists and then they go bankrupt.
The biggest problem is predicting future demand, because it often declines quickly rather than gradually.
do we have evidence of RAM manufacturers going bankrupt? do we have evidence that the increased capacities after the mentioned past shortages went unused or were operated at a loss?
> Memory makers did get themselves into this situation by selling all wafers for empty promises and alienating everyone but OpenAI tbh.
Wasn't the problem here that OpenAI was negotiating with Samsung and SK Hynix at the same time without the other one knowing about it? People only realized the implications when they announced both deals at once.
> We live in a neoliberal world where corporate monopolies / oligopolies aren’t even remotely regulated. If you try to do even the gentlest regulation of companies people scream about communism and totalitarianism. Unless the regulation serves the monopolies by making it harder to enter the market.
The thing that enables this is pretty obvious. The population is divided into two camps, the first of which holds the heuristic that regulations are "communism and totalitarianism" and this camp is used to prevent e.g. antitrust rules/enforcement. The second camp holds the heuristic that companies need to be aggressively "regulated" and this camp is used to create/sustain rules making it harder to enter the market.
The problem is that ordinary people don't have the resources to dive into the details of any given proposal but the companies do. So what we need is a simple heuristic for ordinary people to distinguish them: Make the majority of "regulations" apply only to companies with more than 20% market share. No one is allowed to dump industrial waste in the river but only dominant companies have bureaucratic reporting requirements etc. Allow private lawsuits against dominant companies for certain offenses but only government-initiated prosecutions against smaller ones, the latter preventing incumbents from miring new challengers in litigation and requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
This even makes logical sense, because most of the rules are attempts to mitigate an uncompetitive market, so applying them to new entrants or markets with >5 competitors is more likely to be deleterious, i.e. drive further consolidation. Whereas if the market is already consolidated then the thicket of rules constrains the incumbents from abusing their dominance in the uncompetitive market while encouraging new entrants who are below the threshold.
Arguably a more efficient approach might just be to have a tax that adds on to corporate tax incrementally for every % of market share a company has above say 7-8%. Then dominant companies are incentivised to re-invest in improving their efficiencies rather than just buying/squeezing out competitors. A more evenly spread market would then, as a result, be against regulations that make smaller market participants less competitive, as they'd all be in relatively less table positions.
First, on the surface, this sounds like a terrible idea. Almost all ideas that I see on HN about economics fail with even the tiniest amount of common sense.
As a counterpoint: Look at very high value goods, like jet engines and MRI machines. I went for an MRI the other day and wondered to myself (then asked an LLM) what the international MRI market looks like. They are vanishingly small number of manufacturers and are usually dominated by a few international players. How are you going to apply this tax to non-domiciled (international) companies? Also, companies like General Electric, Mitsubishi Heavy, and Seimens are enormous and incredibly diverse. This idea falls apart quickly.
> Arguably a more efficient approach might just be to have a tax that adds on to corporate tax incrementally for every % of market share a company has above say 7-8%.
How is this more efficient? You'd still be applying all of the inefficient regulatory rules intended to mitigate a lack of competition to the smaller companies trying to sustain a competitive market, and those rules are much more deleterious for smaller entities than higher tax rates.
If you have $100M in fixed regulatory overhead for a larger company with $10B in profit, it's only equivalent to a 1% tax. The same $100M for a smaller company with $50M in profit is a 200% tax. There is no tax rate you can impose on the larger company to make up for it because the overhead destroys the smaller company regardless of what you do to the larger one.
> the Dutch power grid is at capacity and its managing company is now telling companies that planned to build a datacenter that they can't be connected to the grid until 2030, even though said companies already paid for and got guarantees about that connection.
Are the Netherlands a large proportion of global datacenters?
Amsterdam hosts a major internet exchange. It's not a bad place to build a datacenter and there are many. Northern latitude brings free air cooling, but also additional distance to clients. Lots of peers in AMS-IX, but not a lot of oceananic cable landings (one with two paths to the US, but most of the submarine cables land nearby in Europe)
London is about 3X bigger than Amsterdam in terms of capacity. If you look at the core western europe market (so called FLAP-D) which I am rather familiar with London holds 35% of that market and Amsterdam about 12%. I'm not at all sold that the old rule of thumb that this market is about 25% of global capacity has been true since about 2023 because of the AI buildout in NA/ME.
Yes. Amsterdam has one of the largest IXPs (AMS-IX) in Europe and is also one of the largest European markets for Internet Infrastructure services (i.e. hosting, DNS provision, domain name registration, etc.)
Do AI data centers not need internet connectivity anymore?
The value of an IX isn't just in the IX itself, but also in the presence of hundreds of parties for direct peering, and excellent connectivity to the rest of the world.
It makes a lot of sense to build your DC near one - even if you have no intention of actually participating in the IX itself.
> Do AI data centers not need internet connectivity anymore?
They don't need entire IX worth of connectivity. You're sending mostly text back and forth and any media is in far lower volume than even normal far less dense DC would generate, all the major traffic is inside the AI DC.
What the grid looks like in different countries is very different. The Dutch power grid is already almost 50% renewables, which is an inconvenience for adding capacity because that's around where you have to start really dealing with storage in order to add more.
In most other places the percentage is significantly less than that and then you can easily add more of the cheap-but-intermittent stuff because a cloudy day only requires you to make up a 10% shortfall instead of a 50% one, which existing hydro or natural gas plants can handle without new storage when there are more of them to begin with.
I don’t think the source of the electricity is particularly relevant to whether or not you have the transport capacity to add tens of megawatts of demand to the grid. The problem is generally not the supply but whether your local transformers have capacity left.
When you're talking about something that draws megawatts existing transformers are pretty irrelevant because you're going to run high voltage lines directly to the site itself and install new dedicated transformers on site.
What's more common is that they don't have the transmission capacity itself, but that one's pretty easy in this case too, because what that means is that you have an existing transmission line which is already near capacity with generation on one end and customers on the other. So then you just build the data center on the end of the transmission line where the generation is rather than the end where the existing customers are, at which point you can add new generation anywhere you want -- and if you put it near the existing customers you've just freed up transmission capacity because you now have new customers closer to the existing generation and new generation closer to the existing customers.
High-level, I would agree with you. One thing that blows me away: I think I read that Northern Virginia, USA has the highest data center density in the world. Mostly it is due to demand from US gov't, military, and spy agencies (like NSA). How did they do it? In mainstream media, I don't see any news about a stressed power grid in this area. I guess the US gov't carefully coordinated with local power providers to continuously upgrade their power grid? This is a real question. It makes no sense to me. No shilling/trolling here.
> I think I read that Northern Virginia, USA has the highest data center density in the world. Mostly it is due to demand from US gov't, military, and spy agencies (like NSA).
That's where AWS us-east-1 is, i.e. the oldest AWS region where they got started to begin with. Google and Microsoft also have a large presence there. It's not just the US government, it's everybody, and it's not new.
> How did they do it?
Here's the US nuclear plant map, guess where a bunch of them are:
The area around Virginia is also a major coal producer and when this was getting started it was a source of cheap electricity, but coal is quickly being replaced with natural gas via pipelines from the Gulf coast. Their current power mix is ~30% nuclear, ~12% renewables (solar) and almost all the rest natural gas.
Well, they have done pretty well for 20 years of planning. Google tells me that AWS us-east-1 region (Northern Virginia) was started in 2006!
EDIT
The opening paragraph:
> State regulators’ review of the controversial power line proposed to stretch across three rural Maryland counties will extend to at least February 2027, officials announced Thursday, a timeline that prevents developers from meeting the grid operator’s deadline to ensure reliable electricity.
I bet this is pure NIMBYism. Just this phrase alone is a dead giveaway: "controversial power line". LOL: What is controversial about a power line? Hint: They aren't, but NIMBYism exists.
The grid is constantly "stressed" everywhere, because they're designed to be. You don't build five times as much capacity as you need at huge expense for no reason, you design the thing to have only slightly more capacity than you expect to need.
If demand increases you have to build more generation and power lines etc. This is not a problem but for NIMBYs, it's just the logical consequence. If the local population increases and you don't have enough grocery stores you don't say "grocery stores are stressed" and regard it as an insurmountable problem, people just open more of them.
Chef's kiss for this reply. It is perfect. I like how you reframed the argument around grocery stores. It would be ridiculous to write a newspaper article about "grocery stores are stressed" and there is a newly proposed "controversial grocery store". NIMBYists will perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend their positions.
> Vendors shouldn't sell unlocked devices to kids.
This part is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Put aside the Orwellian premise of "devices are locked by default". People keep making the analogy to things like cigarettes, but if a kid wants a steady supply of cigarettes then they need a steady supplier. If they want an "unlocked device" they just need money and Craigslist, once. It doesn't matter what you make Walmart do and it correspondingly doesn't make any sense to involve them.
If your kids have enough unsupervised money to buy electronics then you're either fine with them being unsupervised or you already have bigger problems than a used laptop.
Kids having $20-30 means you're fine with them being unsupervised? Computers and smartphones are incredibly cheap.
In person, we expect stores won't sell cigarettes to kids. We should simply expect companies won't provide age restricted services to kids. The liability and requirements should be on those companies.
If they're able to get a burner phone unsupervised then I think they could also pay an adult to do the face scan for them or borrow your ID from your purse to authenticate an account. What level of security would you need to totally prevent that kind of thing? Unless it checks your age every time you log in with biometrics I don't see it.
(Of course adding any level of friction will deter some kids, but needing to get a whole new device other than the one their parents gave them is already a lot of friction, isn't it?)
We could e.g. try saying it's sufficient that the user makes ongoing credit cards payments as a proof of age. Or sure maybe you need to verify with every purchase, which is how e.g. alcohol works.
Don't currently take payments for your business model? Probably what you're doing is anticompetitive and we shouldn't allow it anyway.
What service? The social media regulations I recall seeing have a size threshold, so hobbyists don't seem relevant. For something like porn, after having actually thought about it some, I don't really see how we've decided that anonymous porn isn't blatantly public indecency, so frankly I don't see how hobbyists openly sharing their work with anyone without knowing who they're giving it to wouldn't be committing a crime.
> I don't really see how we've decided that anonymous porn isn't blatantly public indecency
That one seems pretty obvious. The point of public indecency laws is so that your family can go to McDonald's and not encounter some couple fornicating on the table. Whereas if you go to a private house where someone lives with a reputation for not being very selective about who they take their clothes off in front of, that's not a public establishment.
A privately owned PC connecting to a privately owned server is a private connection, not a public place. It's something you get by going there. You're not required to go to the frat house.
A private business that serves the general public is a public establishment though, even if it's run out of your home. The criteria is whether you restrict access to some private group, not whether it is a privately owned space. I'm not seeing how a server that responds to any traffic without any selectivity (KYC, basically) is not analogous.
It doesn't matter if you're not required to go to the frat house. It matters whether the frat house lets the public in while exhibiting their fornication, or has filters at the door.
I'm not seeing how that affects my framing. Yes, it is more difficult. That sounds like a problem for businesses that want to offer restricted services online, and we should ensure it stays their problem, not everyone else's.
> It leaves open to interpretation if it applies to all computers, or just general purpose ones.
That's not even the worst part:
> a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system
Suppose you write a generic piece of code that some third party then includes in an operating system, but you're the only relevant person in the jurisdiction. Are you now an "operating system provider"? If the "operating system" is made by hundreds of people or more, is it none of them or all of them or what?
Suppose you're a company and you've got a bunch of servers, which are computers, and you have root on them, i.e. you "control" the "operating system".
IMHO, the law tries to target the last entity which has practical control over the OS design and implementation aka the final developer/integrator.
For example in the Linux world, it's the distributions.
Where it gets murky is with Android (and to a lesser extent Windows).
IMHO, the entities which should be responsible are Google and Microsoft.
But since vendors, specially in the Android world, can heavily tweak the OS, there is a case that it's more the device manufacturers like Samsung which are responsible.
The relevant interpretation in practice will usually happen naturally, and the most ambiguous stuff will be set by jurisprudence if necessary.
> IMHO, the entities which should be responsible are Google and Microsoft.
So let's say someone in e.g. South America publishes an Android ROM. >99% of the code was written by Google but the author isn't using Google Play or any form of Google service for updates, it's only using the base Android code with their own updater.
If someone in California uses this ROM and the person in the other jurisdiction made modifications so that it doesn't comply with this law, who is in trouble? It's pretty unreasonable to claim that it's Google, but then is it no one, since the party responsible is outside the jurisdiction?
The problem is it's pretty hard to tell ahead of time whether that's what happens.
Suppose some large private company has to decide whether they're going to build a new facility in city A or city B. This is useful information for all kinds of reasons. If you're a vendor then you need to start making preparations to set up shop in the city where your big customer is moving etc.
The company's analysis shows it would derive a $10M advantage from building in city A. The prediction market is correctly leaning that way. If there are only enough counterparties that someone who now bets on city B and wins would make $5M, everything works the way it should and the company goes with city A. But if there are enough counterparties that a winning bet on city B would net you $25M then the company can place the bet, eat the $10M loss by choosing city B and come out $15M ahead.
But the $10M number isn't public. It's essentially the thing you wanted the market to predict and it could be arbitrarily larger or smaller than that. So how are you supposed to know if the prediction market will be predicting the result or determining it?
A different example would be people bettering on whether a politician/celebrity will wear a certain color at an event. Since these apps allow exactly these sorts of trivial bets, this is not an stretch. That politician/celebrity or their team could easily wear a color that aligns with their bets. This seems indistinguishable from a scam.
A private company of any real size isn't plausibly going to choose Atlanta over Chattanooga to win a prediction market bet. This is a good example of the kind of prediction that can theoretically be prosocial, and one strong indicator that it might be is that an insider bet is helpful rather than harmful.
On the other hand, at the point where the prediction market winnings are material enough that they might alter the underlying decision itself, you've clearly got an antisocial structure. Prediction markets that don't want to be seen as mere prop betting venues should refuse to run markets on those questions.
> On the other hand, at the point where the prediction market winnings are material enough that they might alter the underlying decision itself, you've clearly got an antisocial structure.
How is that supposed to be determined?
There are many decisions that have only minor implications to the party making them (they're choosing between two nearly-equivalent alternatives) but massive implications for third parties (the company or city chosen gets a huge gain and knowing which one is valuable information). When the decision itself is essentially a coin flip, any prediction market winnings could alter the underlying decision. And whether it's that close of a decision is the thing the market would be trying to predict rather than something you already know.
> If things like Kalshi and Polymarket are prediction markets, then, at least as far as the intrinsic concerns of the market itself are concerned, insider trading is a good thing; literally part of the point.
That depends on what the effects are.
Suppose that predicting things well requires both information and analysis. Early access to information is therefore a competitive advantage: Even if you're not as good at analysis, having the information before anyone else and then getting the analysis right 65% of the time is more often than not going to let you beat the people who get the analysis right 85% of the time once they have the information. Which is to say, it will make it less profitable for the people who are better at analysis to participate in the market, and then fewer of them will.
So the question is, what do you want? An answer which is right 65% of the time slightly sooner, or an answer which is right 85% of the time slightly later? It's valid to want the second one.
You're predicting something which is happening in six months but is affected by data which is being published today. Do you want a more accurate price that comes in the afternoon, or a less accurate price that comes in the morning and then stays less accurate for months because the insiders ate too much of the expected profit margin to justify more expensive analysis?
I don't understand how your analysis works. How are you proposing people who are right early get run over by people who are right with certainty later?
Suppose there is a yes/no question on a prediction market which currently has "yes" at 0.20 and "no" at 0.80. Some data is about to be published that unambiguously makes "yes" more likely, but it's less obvious how much more likely and a more accurate prediction requires more resources or skill.
Further suppose you were going to spend resources analyzing the data and after that your conclusion would be that "yes" is a buy at up to 0.75, i.e. you think there is a 75% chance of it happening. And it turns out you were on the right side because it does end up being yes.
If everyone gets the data at the same time, you can start buying "yes" when it's still at 0.20 and keep buying it until it gets up to 0.75. If someone gets the data before you, even if they're (wrongly) less confident than you and only buy at up to 0.55, they start buying a day earlier and by the time the data is published, "yes" is already at 0.55. The result is that you, who were a buyer at up to 0.75, get significantly fewer contracts (because the other sellers already sold to the insider), and worse yet you only get the ones that cost more than 0.55 instead of getting many of the ones that were 0.20. In other words, you make significantly less money when it ultimately turns out you were right.
If your average profit is now less than the amount you needed to justify doing the analysis, you stop doing it, and then you don't buy any contracts at all. Then the price ends up stuck at 0.65 "yes" instead of 0.75 "yes" when "yes" was the right answer, because there wasn't enough profit left to fund an analysis that could justify higher confidence in the correct result.
Isn't this just how politics looks now? The Republicans say that, the Democrats say the Republicans are secretly nazis who want to nazi genocide you, both parties contain millions of people so both can point to some extremists on the other side saying something shocking and then they both go back to trying to get 51% of the votes so they can be the ones picking your pocket this year.
edit: It's beautiful how the two immediate replies to this post are, respectively, "it's not both sides because only the Democrats are actually Marxists" and "it's not both sides because only the Republicans are actually Fascists".
reply