There can be more than two sides in healthy democracies.
Said healthy democracies don’t have first past the post voting systems. Our system pretty much ensures only two viable parties.
Readit Newsjaredklewis commented on Silicon Valley is pouring millions into pro-AI PACs to sway midterms techcrunch.com/2025/08/25... · Posted by u/sailfast
jaredklewis commented on Gemini 2.5 Flash Image developers.googleblog.com... · Posted by u/meetpateltech
This comment is perfect.
jaredklewis commented on US retail giants raise prices due to tariffs english.elpais.com/econom... · Posted by u/geox
What a wonderful success the Federal Reserve redefinition of "inflation" has been. We will never get anywhere if everything that causes price increases is called inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply which also happens to increases prices.
Everything has trade offs. Diluting the dollar increases prices for nothing in return. Pretty much all downside for everybody but the top. Tariffs increase prices to the benefit of domestic producers and benefits everybody.
What we will see is if prices are more important than building skills and wealth of our fellow citizens.
> Inflation is an increase in the money supply which also happens to increases prices.
This is not a definition I have seen used by academic or working economists. If the purchasing power of $1 decreases, we can say there has been inflation. Even if the money supply is constant, if shirts used to cost $10 but now cost they cost $100 due to increased demand, a supply shock, a union strike, a tax, or a speculative shirt buying bubble, it would be considered inflation in all of those cases, regardless of the cause.
It sounds like you mean monetary inflation, but the fed’s mandate is not to control monetary inflation (which would be a lot simpler) but to ensure stable prices. The mandate has no exception for non-monetary causes of price instability.
Of course measuring how much a dollar can purchases is an enormously complex and subtle task that can be approached in many different ways. But the whole argument for tariffs is that foreign producers of goods are selling them so cheaply that American producers cannot compete. So if we increase the price of those foreign goods by adding a tax on it and shift some good consumption to more expensive American producers, that’s obviously going to reduce what a dollar can purchase.
I don’t think you can put pump breakage on an agenda. Sometimes emergencies require emergency action.
The pump broke in June, the meeting was in August. Does it take more than a full calendar month to update an agenda?
jaredklewis commented on We need a new theory of democracy – because this version has failed salon.com/2025/08/24/we-n... · Posted by u/hkhn
> According to polling data, 62 percent of Americans favor the government being responsible for the health coverage of all people in the country. Sixty-five percent of Americans polled favored the infrastructure bill passed during Joe Biden’s presidency. In a poll taken just last year, 63 percent of Americans wanted to increase trade with other countries, and 75 percent worried that tariffs would raise consumer prices. Another poll found 83 percent of likely voters, including 80 percent of Republicans, supported providing federal housing assistance after a natural disaster.
> Yet in 2024, a near-majority of voters chose a president who would not only not improve medical access, but would adopt a policy to drop coverage for at least 10 million Americans who are currently insured. His other policies include neglecting infrastructure (with the exception of ICE detention facilities), and rescinding unspent funds from the Biden infrastructure bill. FEMA has been cut, and the president has imposed the highest tariffs since the Smoot-Hawley Act almost a century ago.
> What explains this behavioral disconnect on the part of voters?
I think there's only a disconnect because of the author's flawed theory of how the world works. It would be like an article wondering: "Why did Americans elect Barak Obama, a White Sox fan, when only a small minority of Americans are White Sox fans?" It's because people don't pick the president based on which baseball team they like. The author has lined up polling data on a long list of public policies, but doesn't present any evidence that these are deciding issues for voters.
Psychologists and social scientists have been explaining for decades that the model of voters casting their votes based on public policy positions is not an accurate reflection of reality. Instead, the modal voter aligns with a politician or party usually based upon what is socially expedient for that individual (i.e. what will help me be liked by my friends and family, which is why age and zip code alone get you most of the way to predicting someone's vote). Many voters don't have opinions on individual public policies, but to the extent they do, they usually adopt the policy choices of their chosen party. It's why you can pretty accurately predict someone's opinion on immigration based on their opinion on gender ideology or some other unrelated position.
This is a genuine question, because the discussion here is centered around cars, but is Tesla not just a car company? Aren’t they trying to position themselves in robotics? I figured that’s where the pricing comes from - a mix of people betting on cars + robotics, and an automated robotic workforce + AI being the future of industrial and maybe even retail labour?
Why would a robotics company justify higher valuations? Isn’t that going to be a capital intensive, low margin race to the bottom like cars?
Seems like only pure software businesses (which are extremely capital light and often come with network or lock in effects) can justify the really crazy valuations.
> But the quality of MacBooks is just another level. I had 3 or 4 so far since 2010, and each of them held at least 5 years. Crazy good.
When I read things like this it really sounds like there is some reality distortion field in the mac world. How is that anywhere special? I'm running a thinkpad X1 as my 2 main laptops (it was my only work machine until 2 years ago) and I never felt the need to replace it. It gave me 8-10h battery life and the only issue I ever had was that 1.5 years ago the battery was reaching end of life and capacity started dropping very fast.
That was just a 70$ repair I could easily do myself.
My youngest daughter just inherited my mother's x220 (?) (she has been running Linux) that I got for my mother in 2011 or 2012. That never received any work and still works fine except that I didn't change the battery so you have to run it of ac power.
My older daughter and my mother both just got some used thinkpads that are >3years old and don't have any issues either.
So from my experience a 5 year lifetime for a macbook is really nothing special and definitely not "crazy good".
IME I tend to get a new MacBook every five years or so just because I like new hardware, but none of my old MacBooks were anywhere near end of life after 5 years. One I gave to a relative was in use for around 13 years until it failed (but it was really abused so I actually think it was a good run).
My wife’s MacBook Air is 12 years old and my wife doesn’t want a new one (though it would drive me crazy). No issues yet, though obviously battery is not what it once was.
Anyway, I think MacBooks last much longer than 5 years if you can control your new hardware envy.
jaredklewis commented on Our Response to Mississippi's Age Assurance Law bsky.social/about/blog/08... · Posted by u/Kye
VPN providers are going to be making out like bandits with all the new legislation coming out.
jaredklewis commented on Google is killing the open web wok.oblomov.eu/tecnologia... · Posted by u/thm
I suppose the definition of intentional is a bit murky here.
Yeah, you're right that Google probably didn't look at a list of open web technologies that they disagree with and choose one for their new tool. I guess I'll call that "malicious intention".
I'm sure that, however the name was picked, Google's lawyers looked for prior uses of the name. I'm sure it came up, and Google shrugged its shoulders in indifference. Maybe someone brought up the fact this would hurt some open standard or whatever, but nobody in power cared. Is this the same kind of malicious? Probably not, but it still shows that Google doesn't care about the open web and the collateral damage they cause.
Have you ever tried to name something? Anything that isn’t an outright racial slur is in use by something. Usually dozens or hundreds of things. Some protocol that almost no one has even heard of is going to be very low on the list of conflicts to avoid. This has nothing to do with the open web.
jaredklewis commented on When did AI take over Hacker News? zachperk.com/blog/when-di... · Posted by u/zachperkel
There is a relevant number of power users that also flag everything that is critical of big tech and won’t fit their frame as well, sending it into oblivion, regardless of the community rules and clear support from other voting members. But also calling that out is seen as negative and not constructive, and there goes any attempt at a discussion.
How do you know who flags submissions?