Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | esbranson's commentslogin

> Blocking access

> Asking to regulate hardware chips more

> partnerships with [the military-industrial complex]

> only labs doing good in that front are Chinese labs

That last one is a doozy.


You mean bans on recent industry affiliation and cooling-off periods? Like the recent federal vaccine committee (ACIP) under Trump? If I understand correctly, the current ACIP members have pretty good insulation from the vaccine industry. I would uh guess that uh many people would disagree that such a disconnect with industry results in better outcomes.


It's not a binary choice between industry stooges and admin stooges. Believe it or not competent people exist in the middle. Better outcomes do exist when the regulatory body isn't working at the behest of industry and isn't filled imcmompentant "yes" men.


> suns are sentient beings, and by just watching the stars, we may see them communicate

With radio signals?


We have a statutory office within the US Department of Defense meant to track UFOs (AARO).[1] Why would such things be sending electromagnetic signals from outer space?

Literally thousands of witnesses. It's very odd to say "aliens may exist, but those nuclear weapons officers are crazy, aliens would definitely be sending signals from elsewhere, they would not be and are not here."

[1] 50 USC § 3373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373


Looking at Tech Dirt's related articles from 2007, I cannot find any articles about "Bush's FCC" implementing the open platform regulations in question.[1]

The problem is that Obama's FCC did nothing (also not discussed by Tech Dirt, aka lying by omission) so that only one nationwide carrier, Verizon, remained bound by mandatory unlocking.

> US journalism is a clown show

Tech Dirt is little better than propaganda, defined more by what they omit than what they do not. Chatbot summaries, including of the reports and orders in question, are immensely more informative. I suspect even Deep Seek would give a clearer picture of reality.

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/service-rules-698-746-747-762-a...


I don't think there's anything comparable to it. With all the topics people write books on over and over, how is this still unique?


The prime age (25-54 years old) labor force participation rate disagrees.[1] It's almost the highest it's ever been and steady.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060


Correct. The prime age labor force participation rate is 0.8% lower than the all-time record highest in recorded US history, January 1999.


It never has. The labor force participation rate for 25-54 year-olds is a better metric for such things.[1] Last time it was this high was 1990s through 2002. (Before that, it was never this high.)

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060


The shape of that graph is roughly equivalent to the shape of labor force participation for women [1]. I don’t think that detracts from your point in regards to the last 20-30 years, but in regards to “before that it was never this high” I think it’s evident that the societal shift of women joining the workforce is the reason, not an improvement in the economy.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002


One would need the data.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: