> No hard evidence of this was provided or is readily available.
That's not their job, that's the governments' job. So much of this (the article and your comment) is putting so much on Palantir when they are just doing the job asked of them. They don't work for the people, the government does.
They likely bribed someone in the government to get that contract though.
Regardless, it is ridiculous to absolve corporations and the people running them from all accountability, just because their aim is ever more money. In fact, that should make you criticize them more, not less.
I felt the same way as you until I took a few road trips in sn EV.
I drove about 20 hours in two days. The thing that struck me is how refreshed I felt when I arrived. Normally I'd be dead on my feet and the travel day would be lost completely but I was ready for activity on arrival. I was very surprised.
I have heard that the combination of self-driving and mandatory 30-60” breaks every few hours is very relaxing. I look forward to trying it some day. Meanwhile…
I would be very wary of taking my bolt on a long journey. I have no confidence that what few fast chargers are out there would actually work, or be available, and I wouldn’t want to plan my journey around charging stops, with copious backup plans! It would be very stressful!!
Not to mention that my bolt has only 300mi range in summer, and less than 200mi in winter. And fast chargers are rare enough that I’d be scared to get anywhere near the limit.
By contrast, my Elantra hybrid has a ~600mi range. And I can “charge” it anywhere.
The past is still here. It just isn’t evenly distributed.
e-GMP platform (IONIQ 5, etc.) is really good for road trips.
At least in summer temperatures it reliably charges to 80% under 20 minutes. Its range estimate is quite good, and I can depend on it to know when I can skip a charging stop (when I first drove an EV I was freaking out about the 20% state of charge like it was a cellphone. Now I roll to the chargers with 2% left when it saves time).
It depends where you live, but infrastructure in the UK and EU has got good enough to the point I don't need backup plans. Chargers are as common as McDonald's (often quite literally). If a station is slow or busy, I can just go to the next one (and they are in clumps often enough that even with a low battery it's not a big deal).
It's under the purview of the executive branch to determine drug scheduling
> The term "list I chemical" means a chemical specified by regulation of the Attorney General ... until otherwise specified by regulation of the Attorney General
People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state to detain, arrest, and potentially deprive citizens of a free country of their life, liberty or property is asinine and shameful.
Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held accountable, and then cry like babies when someone makes videos and mocks them. He could have just sued them directly to recoup his financial losses from them destroying his house over a bs warrant but cops have qualified immunity. The justice system gives him no recourse. They sued him for videos meanwhile his countersuit was thrown out on this basis.
If you support the cops on this I see no reason why one should not conclude you "wholly endorse" the ongoing "law enforcement" assault on free Americans. What principles do you take the nation to be founded on? You realize red coats coming into people's homes under the color of the law is what instigated the war that bought this country its liberty 250 years ago? I fail to see how this is much different, armed goons with guns and badges invading private property that cannot be held accountable. No election he can take part in will reasonably solve this so he can sue in a timely manner, as the unelected justice system has unilaterally decided you cannot sue cops over this. This is anti-American. Go read the bill of rights and tell me it is consistent with the spirit of those hard fought liberties to support the cops on this. I hope if you actually endorse burdens of proof you will at least support local, state and federal representatives who will codify into law a "repeal" of qualified immunity so that cops who fail to meet that burden can be held personally accountable.
Note a case on that count would still need to prevail on the merits. That is how justice is supposed to work. Instead a carve out for law enforcement has been created where you can't even take them to court. Your case is going to get thrown out. The justice system should not be creating this special class of people, with great power and depriving them of the responsibilities common between neighbors in a free society. What they have done is really not unlike the British sending armed men into American cities to violate rights and then insisting they cannot be held accountable in colonial courts as a matter of principle. This is criminal. People should be able to sue police officers. If that makes the cost of waving guns in people's faces more expensive then so be it.
> People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state
Let's take a step back. OP, essentially, made a very basic logical error (actually not an error IMO, but a willfully misleading statement).
They said, "Statistically, [assuming a cop is a white supremacist] a pretty sensible assumption."
In my mind, what makes something a statistically safe assumption would mean that, more times than not, you'd be right. So it'd mean that greater than half of police are white supremacists. They then posted a link to support that statement which said that some white supremacist groups are instructing their members to join the police force.
He's gone from the evidence of "some" white supremacist groups are telling "some" of their members among the police force to justify saying that it's a safe assumption to assume any officer is a white supremacist (greater than 50% chance for any random cop to be a white supremacist).
Considering that I strongly doubt the quantity of white supremacists that are members of white supremacist organizations in this county is even more than half of the amount of police officers, I very much doubt that the subset of individuals in the subset of organizations who were given this instruction and actually followed through on it comprises more than half of the police officers in the country.
To which I facetious said, "I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal." Implying that, if the cops used the same logic on a neighborhood with criminals, it'd be sensible for them to assume every member of the neighborhood is a criminal. That point seemed to go over OPs head as he replied as if I wasn't making a facetious point and implied that cops do indeed do that. Presumably he thinks that's a bad thing when they do it but is perfectly reasonable for him to do.
I don't think anyone should be using faulty logic to make claims about groups of people.
> If you support the cops on this
I never said I did and, as such, the rest of this comment is not directed to me.
Indeed, your chances of needing a seatbelt for a particular car trip are very low but, over many trips, it becomes a safe assumption you'll be in an accident and, therefore, generally good policy to be prepared for that eventuality.
> It doesn't justify the cost when they can just rip you off, charging the same amount for a fraction of the bandwidth...
You can start a company right now and lay fiber in these places and start your own telecom.
You probably don't have the money for that but, if you put together a solid business plan, a bank would give you a loan.
You may not have the experience or expertise to do that, but there are plenty of people who do.
Why hasn't that happened yet? It turns out that laying down miles of fiber for a handful of customers isn't profitable.
Google dod it in a few places that were low hanging fruit. Places that had telephone poles where they could get relatively easy access to them.
There are certainly places where access to those poles is more difficult than it should be but most places are hampered by either being too remote to justify the cost of burying lines to a few customers (rural areas) or the digging is too expensive to many customers (suburban areas) because they'd be digging up streets.
> This is outlined in Project 2025 (which I have not read).
Great sentence.
Aside from making me completely doubt everything you're stating, I don't understand why people just take it as a given that Project 2025 is something the current administration gives two shits about.
> I don't understand why people just take it as a given that Project 2025 is something the current administration gives two shits about.
Because if you use project 2025 as a scorecard, the current administration is hitting all the salient points very quickly. With a score that high, inferring that the administration does in fact give two shits about it seems reasonable.
I noticed this scorecard doesn't show things that are done that _aren't_ in project 2025 and things that are directly in opposition. There's no "Did the opposite" status, just "Not started", "In progress", and "Completed".
Furthermore, looking through the list of objectives, the "completed" objectives are all fairly middle of the road conservative points, it's no surprise that many of those are marked as completed. The one's that are making headlines are mostly found in the "Not Started" sections. https://www.project2025.observer/en?sort=status-asc
It's not surprising that a conservative think tank and a conservative administration are aligned on a quite a few things but there are plenty of things in this list of objectives that the current administration has either not done or said anything regarding or has actively worked against.
As an exercise, go through all 320 objectives and see how many _you_ agree with. Plenty of them are milquetoast positions. A chunk of them are also just "continue enforcing existing laws", sinister wording for bog standard practices or broad/vague enough that every administration could probably call it completed.
Rescheduling marijuana and invading Iran are conspicuously missing.
You can ignore anything in the category of immigration enforcement, DEI or gender issues in Project 2025 because Trump has been going on about that stuff long before project 2025 was ever published.
There's also a bunch of "End the Fed" type of libertarian stuff that Trump, showing himself to be a proponent, not opponent, of big government is never going to do.
The point is that such perverse incentives already exist in a lot of places. Polymarket style betting on the scale that it enables is new but it's just that, a difference in scale but not kind.
The reason I bring that up is to caution against an overreaction to treating it like it's a brand new thing that needs to be dealt with in some unique way. Instead, trying to figure out why the existing mechanisms that prevent the same kind of abuses might not work at scale is a better mindset, I think.
> Falcon nine is the world's workhorse rocket, but it's just not that remarkable
The funniest part of any thread relating to Musk is how hard people go into minimizing his accomplishments.
You don't have to like the guy (I don't) to acknowledge that the Falcon 9 is an engineering marvel and ushered in an entire new era of space travel, both reusable and private.
Sales are artificial boosts yes. The difference is in the connotation. A sale is given for something that people generally would buy anyway, but now more people will. An artificial boost is given to stuff nobody wants, but at a lower price can be convinced to buy.
Or in other words, sales raise $high_number to $higher_number while artificial boosts raise $essentially_zero to $acceptable_number.
the claim is that it moved sales forward in time, but it'll have a corresponding dip in sales later, whereas a good sales campaign increases total volume (virtually no dip, brings in new customers, etc)
look around your house and see how much shit you got that you really want(ed). great salesman (and elon is the best in the history of the civilization) will sell you shit you never thought you wanted :)
The motivation to buy something is always because you want it. That a product doesn’t meet your needs or expectations later is a different story. What’s your evidence to claim that people spending 60k in a cybertruck don’t want it? What’s your evidence to make a similar claim or the opposite for any other purchase? Without evidence it feels you are making baseless claims about peoples motivations.
Is it still your claim that people spending 60k on Cybertruck don’t want it? How do you know? Given the lack evidence feels like motivated thinking. You don’t like Elon and can’t accept that tons of people actually like him and his products.
I think you might be slightly misinformed on how many 10,000+ dollar purchases the average person makes in their lifetime to make sweeping statements of that nature. Advertizing sales on medical procedures or daycare could have the opposite effect I would imagine
That's not their job, that's the governments' job. So much of this (the article and your comment) is putting so much on Palantir when they are just doing the job asked of them. They don't work for the people, the government does.