There are no elon musk museums. There are no elon musk hospitals. There are no elon musk centers for unwed mothers.
How could the richest man in the world give so little back.
How do you know? Maybe he doesn't name these Elon?
Readit Newsjohnthewise commented on Tesla reports another Robotaxi crash electrek.co/2025/12/15/te... · Posted by u/hjouneau
They do though within their borders?
referring to legality is self referential, since they enact the laws, everything they do can be legal. US could sentence commissioners to prison by enacting certain laws or declare war, we wouldn't certainly say 'they have a right to do that' in that situation.
alephnerd, I have to flat out disagree with your grievances [0][1][2][3][4][5]. The more I read, the worse it gets. The fact that some people in a foreign country feel personally persecuted by the DSA and are willing to bully us around is not a good argument against it [1]. In fact, I think the American attitude of having "red lines" about this is quite frankly irrelevant to the bigger picture [2]. I think there are plenty of ego-syntonic justifications for why it's okay to take a different stance than us on our policies, but while there are plenty of sources, I don't think there is a lot of reasoned analysis [3]. I'm sure much of it is shaped by personal circumstances. But I admit, sweeping historical references can be interesting too [4]. As a Swede, I can tell you that not a single person I know cares about random companies in Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France getting pressured [5]. I'm not very familiar with it, but I'm sure Finland already regrets their previous stance on cloud-infra. Perceptions have fundamentally changed about the United States as an ally. As for GCAP and FCAS, they have different requirements and serve different purposes. What's your take on the next Gripen?
If you want to pressure Volkswagen, go ahead. Nobody cares. The fundamental flaw in your position is your implicit assumption about what we value or what motivates us. We're not Americans. I don't think America's "non-tariff barriers" are a valid concern. They are disingenuous rhetoric for domestic consumption. Heads would roll if there was ever an agreement with the US to lower our standards and open up local industries to competition from lower quality foreign importers due to geopolitical pressure. Pressure is not going to undo the DSA or the GDPR because they have broad support. As others have said, it is decades overdue. If Elon Musk is mad about having to follow the law, I'm sure he can find sympathy elsewhere. His sour grapes are not principled, they are about protecting his ego and finding others who do so for him.
Sorry for the bluntness, but I feel it is very much warranted.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46170683
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46170823
[2] - ibid.
[3] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46171255
[4] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46174642
[5] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46175036
Of course no one cares about random companies in Czechia or France getting pressured; it's not meant to sway public opinion in Sweden, otherwise it would have been a waste of influence (money). I think alephnerd operates on a higher level of abstraction in his commentary, and you mistake this as him making specific validity claims about the policies. I think your grievances stem from this gap in abstraction.
For example, he might personally support DSA/GDPR, but he says that the US generally views these as “non-tariff barriers” to US service companies[0] and doesn’t bother evaluating the policies themselves. essentially saying for the purposes of predicting how the US will react, it's sufficient to analyze how the US views them and the actual policy details lose relevance in that context. He also shared a detail[0] about how the US placed their lobbyists as commissioners on GDPR, which is an interesting operational detail that argues against the broad support argument you’re making. Another question is whether there would still be broad support for some policy after it has been enacted and its adverse effects have been felt.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46174642
johnthewise commented on US sets 2027 deadline for Europe-led NATO defense reuters.com/business/aero... · Posted by u/alephnerd
> the primary purpose of NATO between 1992 and 2022 was to avoid wasting money on defense. Europe was willing to accept a world order, where the US was the hegemon and paid for the privilege
We shifted away from that policy in the Obama administration as part of the Pivot to Asia. We publicly vocalized this shift in strategy [0] during my time in the policy space.
Europe did not listen. Instead, they dragged us into Libya because France ran out of munitions within a week of air strikes. That should have been the first warning call.
Then Western and Northern European nations (except the UK) ignored the second warning in 2014 following the Russian annexation of Crimea and the War in Donbas.
> The is no expectation that Europe would help the US in the Indo–Pacific
Your leadership have messaged otherwise, like the UK [1], France [2], and Italy [3]
Yet we cannot trust the rest of Europe, especially looking at Spain's [4] steady pivot to China and Merkel's pro-China policies [5] before the recent pivot [6].
This is why under the Obama administration we ourselves began pivoting to Asia, because we are not in a position to fight a conventional war with both Russia and China.
--------
And what are you complaining about? We're taking the gloves off now. Deal with the Russians on your own while they are being armed by the Chinese [7]. The leaders you voted to power should have listened when we publicly and privately vocalized this shift in policy for decades.
[0] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6U81KNpyXPI
[1] - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[2] - https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/regional-str...
[3] - https://rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/italys-silent-enga...
[4] - https://ceias.eu/whats-behind-spains-pivot-to-china/
[5] - https://www.cap-lmu.de/download/2015/CAP-WP_German-China-Pol...
[6] - https://merics.org/en/comment/germanys-recent-china-policy
[7] - https://www.ft.com/content/52ea7aab-f8d1-46b6-9d66-18545c5ef...
I found your commentary very tasteful, do you write on X or elsewhere?
johnthewise commented on Nobel Peace Prize 2025: María Corina Machado nobelprize.org/prizes/pea... · Posted by u/pykello
If you actually want to know 'why' people think so, have a look at all the discussions around insider trading in financial markets. No one is forcing you to buy stocks at gunpoint, either.
(And, yes, there are good arguments in favour of allowing insider trading in all markets, and a few against.)
It's easier to justify stock markets banning insider information because there are ignorant participants through their investment funds who we would like to protect. Why would we protect willing participants betting on arbitrary events? Even if we ban on this one too, should we in general be able to create a market that explicitly allows insider information for some arbitrary thing, insideinformationverywelcomemarket, where everyone is aware it's the main point of the market or shall we just protect these people from themselves?
johnthewise commented on Nobel Peace Prize 2025: María Corina Machado nobelprize.org/prizes/pea... · Posted by u/pykello
I kind of feel like abusing the information asymmetry when doing insider trading in a betting market should be illegal regardless if the purpose is to provide information or not, or if it's considered gambling or not. Just like doing so with stocks is illegal today.
why? The purpose of the prediction market is not to be fair to market participants, it's to aggregate information regarding an event. There is a public benefit to allowing participants to bet on insider information. It could be even argued there is nothing unfair about it if everyone is free to do it/can anticipate others might have insider info. If we actually limited the market to participants who have insider information(not feasible because we can't verify), that'd be a great public utility. this is the next best thing for all those who don't participate in it. These are specialized markets and we shouldn't rush to 'protect' people who bet on very technical events happening.
would you kill murderers before they murdered anyone?
How is it despite Elon? I don't know the history too well.
I agree that the team deserves most of the success. I think that's the case in general. At best, a CEO puts down good framing/structure, that's it. ICs do the actual innovative work.
Napoleon didn't fight much at all in battles, too.
johnthewise commented on Ask HN: Go deep into AI/LLMs or just use them as tools? · Posted by u/pella_may
We already had text search, and I don't see the value in adding a bullshittifier on top of that.
Many people do. I can't imagine ever going back to opening ten tabs for a question. It's not like information on the internet was bullshit-free pre-LLMs. For me, it's easier to verify information than to find it.
> The ‘blue checks’ charge is about consumer deception. X changed the rules about how it does verification in a way that allowed impersonation and scams to flourish. [...] As the Commission put it, the DSA “clearly prohibits online platforms from falsely claiming that users have been verified, when no such verification took place.”
> The ‘ads transparency’ charge stems from the DSA’s requirement that platforms must maintain a public archive showing what ads the platform ran, who paid for them, and other information. X fell drastically short of meeting this requirement
> The third thing the EU penalized X for is not giving researchers better access to public data. This enforcement is not about the DSA’s more famous and controversial requirement for platforms to hand over internal data. It’s just about information that was already publicly available on X’s site and app.
It's clear why the tech monopolies want to keep their secrets in the dark. There is a democratic consensus that what they're pulling either is illegal - or should be illegal. E.g. Scam advertisements, overt editorial practices by selective (de)amplification and/or monetization and looking the other way about bots and third-parties leveraging their systems for spreading political propaganda.
Transparency is their enemy. Free speech is their irrelevant but emotion-laden argument. Europeans see straight through it - the questions is, do the Americans?