It certainly was to anyone who has been paying attention. I would highly recommend that anyone who thinks the tariff strategy is irrational to read through Michael Kao's substack and his analysis of the administration's 2.0 playbook [1]. There's good news and bad news, but overall there's glimmers of hope.
How can one come to the conclusion that US consumers suffered from the US trade deficit with China? They’ve effectively received free stuff every single year, manufactured by Chinese workers, without paying them. I don’t get it.
I am still confused about this. Is the goal for US companies to extract Venezuelan oil, or is it to suppress Venezuelan oil exports altogether? Or are both goals orthogonal?
I don't think oil has something to do with this. As I have mentioned I think the main reason is the cartel has become too powerful and menacing, controlling three countries and expanding.
> which is what Trump wants after it was pretty much confirmed that he's a pedophile.
While there's no shortage of creepy anecdotes about Trump in what's been released, there's been nothing that comes close to showing he had sex with any underage girls, nor have any come forward to claim that.
> Bonus: honors the practice of a republican president invading a country under bullshit premises to capture oil. Bush I and II both did so.
People are missing the point here. This wasn't a regime change, this is psychological warfare against the ruling party to get them to be more compliant. And yes, of course it's all about oil. While this could potentially deny China access to Venezuelan oil in the long term, it also removes the threat to Guyana's production, which is skyrocketing.
Uhh, there is absolutely girls who have come forth to say that he at least has had girls perform oral sex upon him, and other sexual acts beyond "vaginal penetration" (hint: men generally don't describe thirteen year old girls' nipples as "pert". They generally don't have or find opportunities to evaluate them in the first place).
But hey, maybe that's MAGA's next spin, "it's not pedophilia if it's not actual vaginal sex".
If you have a source for that I'll be more than happy to go edit my original post to acknowledge being completely wrong on this. But my instinct is that if there was an even mildly credible report of an underage girl performing oral sex on him, we'd all have heard about it by now.
>if there was an even mildly credible report of an underage girl performing oral sex on him, we'd all have heard about it by now.
We could have the entire epstein report unredacted and you'd still be arguing that the video evidence was Ai generated. There's no helping people like you at this point.
I guess this is what Germany feels like with holocaust deniers. Too bad our constitution makes it hard to prosecute this kind of denial.
The woman known as Katie Johnson accused Trump of raping her and another girl at age 13 at one of Epstein's parties, but dropped the lawsuit. Michael Wolff said Epstein showed him pictures of Trump with topless girls who could have been underaged from his vault. Trump was accused of going into his underaged beauty pageants when they were dressing. Trump sent the birthday letter to Epstein with the nude female drawing and lots of innuendo about sharing a secret. Maxwell was given a very favorable deal by Todd Blanche, and it's known the administration didn't want to release the full Epstein files because of how much Trump was mentioned in them.
Plus Trump was very good friends with Epstein and Maxwell. Do the math.
Honestly, it seems to me that it's "undoing" a lot of work.
Labor Rate at dealerships around me are over $200/h. Granted the mechanic doesn't get 100% of that but 200 * 52 * 8 is nearly 600k. It seems like you could go somewhere else and get the same amount of money as Ford (or more) and don't need to worry about future salary increases not occurring.
The problem is that the mechanics are paid fixed hours for a given type of job (according to the dealership's standard for how long a given job should take). They are not truly being paid per hour. While it's supposed to encourage efficiency, you can imagine how this negatively affects the mechanics as well as the work quality outcomes.
> you shouldn't be starting a high speed pursuit over a seat belt violation, or for someone going 5 over the speed limit.
That's the thing: normal people don't. Violent criminals, people with active arrest warrants, and people carrying highly illegal/dangerous things in their vehicles are the types that run from traffic stops.
What about depressed people? What about stressed people? What about people with autism who overreact when spooked? What about people on the edge who didn't care about the consequences because of the life situation?
What about people who are convinced that police may kill them for mild violation as they saw that multiple times on the news and social media? The reaction to flee may be justified at the moment as it is life or death anyway, even if only in their heads.
There are a lot of "normal" people around who will act abnormally in a high stress situation.
Driving on public roads carries a responsibility to respond reasonably in all kinds of stressful situations. People incapable of handling a traffic stop should not be licensed.
> Driving on public roads carries a responsibility to respond reasonably in all kinds of stressful situations.
Yes.
> People incapable of handling a traffic stop should not be licensed.
Also yes. But both of those points apply to the (US) cops and they frequently fail on both points (the first amply demonstrated by how many police chases end up in crashes and/or deaths; the second by any one of thousands of videos showing where the cops needlessly escalate traffic stops.)
No they're not, people have irrational reactions to things all the time, especially under stress. Getting startled, panicking, and fleeing is definitely one of those.
People will confess to crimes they didn't commit if the police are persuasive enough, that's why such evidence is illegal.
Thank you for speaking to reality of situations that the majority of internet commenters never talk about. I think dang needs to put the HN member lock back on.
> Violent criminals, people with active arrest warrants, and people carrying highly illegal/dangerous things in their vehicles are the types that run from traffic stops.
I beg you to watch the John Oliver segment where he gives several counter-examples to this narrative.
You don't have to attribute any name to the transaction, just a voting booth ID and the vote. The actual benefit is just that it is hard to tamper and easy to trace where tampering happened.
But I still prefer the paper vote and I usually a blockchain apathetic.
Anonymous voting means that you can't sell your vote. Like, if I pay you $5 to vote for X, but I can't actually verify that you voted for X and not Y, then I wouldn't bother trying. Or if I'm your boss and I want you to vote for X... etc.
Exactly why they had to do this: the PSF mission statement is “to promote, protect, and advance the Python programming language, and to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers.” Letting a minority of Americans limit them to the subset of people they consider politically correct wouldn’t be in keeping with that mission.
There's nothing mutually exclusive about non-discimination and diversity. They won't take the grant money because they want to drive a politicized agenda, to the detriment of the Python community as a whole.
Speaking of politicized agendas, I note that you are asserting without evidence that they have a secret motive other than the one states while also assuming that the administration’s interpretation of the relevant contract language will be fair and aboveboard despite the observed evidence.
Their position is logically inconsistent. If they are worried about being eventually targeted by the Trump administration, they have done more to paint a target on their back now then they ever could've done by quietly accepting the money.
I don't believe they intended for their motive to be secret at all. This was an opportunity to bring attention to their political position.
> If they are worried about being eventually targeted by the Trump administration, they have done more to paint a target on their back now then they ever could've done by quietly accepting the money.
That's probably not true given their prominence and the conservative people who've grumbled about them for years, but let's assume that it is the case. Think about what happens next:
If they took the money, they have a substantially non-zero risk that they would be asked to return _all_ of it based on politically-motivated enforcement triggered by anything the PSF does and would face the prospect of spending at least that much money defending themselves in court if they disagreed. You can't rule out that being as simple as someone at PyCon does something which a conservative influencer dislikes.
If they don't take the money, they don't have to estimate the likelihood of the clawback provision being exercised or spend any time trying to protect themselves in that event.
If you're a small non-profit, recognizing when you don't have the resources to fight a particular battle is a very useful skill. It seems very consistent to say that in the choice between a potential trap and no trap they had to avoid a small but non-zero risk of something which could bankrupt the organization.
> I don't believe they intended for their motive to be secret at all. This was an opportunity to bring attention to their political position.
Their motives were never secret – it's literally in the mission statement on their website! – so it's a bit unclear what the point of this paragraph was. Reporting political interference in technical organizations seems like something which is pretty broadly of interest to the community and the amount of positive attention it's getting seems to support that.
[1] https://archive.ph/kLxw3