I'd be in favor of giving Lina Khan a lifetime appointment to heading the FTC along with 10x their current budget to tackle exactly this problem.
A major part of the problem isn't even that we don't have laws on the books, it's that funding to the enforcement agencies has been gutted to the point where they can mostly just go after extreme egregious violations or very easy to win cases. The IRS is in exactly the same boat.
That would be great, but I think even her job needs new laws. Otherwise, one of the problems is even hardcore enforcement takes years and huge amounts of taxpayer expense. We need to make it simple, cheap, and quick to improve competition.
It's hard to express, but it seems the best way to sus-out who is a shill and who's authentic is by comparing across reviews for a product.
It's almost a bit like AI speak. The shills will all have very similar sounding content. They'll all hit on the same (ad copy) points. They might mix in a few negative tidbits, but generally speaking you'll catch them all praising the same wizbang features.
Mkbhd is my favorite baseline shill. He practically just reads the product sheet. You know if he says it, it was probably given to him by the person paying for the review and, indeed, you can find the points he brings up echoed in other people's reviews.
On the flip side, I generally trust Gamers Nexus to not shill. Primarily because their lack of playing ball has actually hurt their access.
I've enjoyed your videos as well. They don't come off as a shill particularly because there's a number of products where the negative points you've put out have been strong enough to actually discourage a purchase. They haven't been weak "The colors could pop more".
> It's hard to express, but it seems the best way to sus-out who is a shill and who's authentic is by comparing across reviews for a product.
Brandolini’s law strikes again: you really have to pay attention to catch a shill. 99% of the time when you’re not paying attention and intentionally shopping for a particular product is when they get you.
Yeah, really does not help that the internet seems to be built from the ground up to reward shilling.
Click on a shill video in youtube and you'll have 20 identical videos on the same topic.
But also, advertisers are smart and you have to assume they know you are on the lookout for a shill. I have to assume the why shilling works will continue to evolve as the way to detect shilling evolves.
I expect we'll end up with something like this in the future [1].
Yup. The regulations on food in the US is exactly to make sure the shelves stay stocked no matter what. Without such regulations, you'd experience random items being unavailable and price shocks.
One thing people often don't figure or realize is food takes time to grow. It requires long term thinking to make sure supplies are sufficient. Left to their own devices, farmers will often chase after last season's cash crop. That is bad. It's far better for farmers to stick to more predictable growing and for more dedicated incentives to be issued.
Did you intend to be so insulting, condescending, and dismissive? "Left to their own devices, farmers will often chase after last season's cash crop. That is bad. It's far better for farmers to stick to more predictable growing and for more dedicated incentives to be issued."
I grew up on a farm and lived around farmers. This is my lived experience.
I saw first hand farmers tear up a barley fields to plant wheat when the price got high enough.
Farming is a game of speculation. Planting last year's cash crop can be a successful strategy just like buying APPL today will likely yield good returns. Yet, it's a very hard market to predict with a lot of luck involved. Maybe only a few chase the cash crop and you win big. Maybe everyone does and you lose. Maybe there's a natural or political disaster that pumps up your crop.
There was nothing insulting, condensing, or dismissive about my comment. Highly speculative markets, like food, have booms and busts that can swing wildly. That's bad for something like food. The free market does not work with crops.
I'd argue that this should be refined to something like "farmers that speculate heavily struggle in an under-regulated free market".
Financial stability in highly volatile markets depends on appropriate planning, saving, and distribution. I say this from the investment perspective, but I would venture to guess that it also applies to hard goods like food-stuffs.
The nature of farming is speculation. It's inescapable. In a completely free market there's no way to guarantee success. Even with the best planning and saving you can't know what the rest of the market is doing and because of the long tail, you are locked in to harvesting and selling your crop no matter what.
You can speculate and be the farmer that always plants and grows wheat. You'll see booms and busts based on that. You can also switch up what you are growing based on your best guess about demand. Both strategies can be successful.
Funnily, one way to make farming less risky is a futures contract. And, if you know anything about futures commodity trading you know they are some of the most risky forms of trading.
It's true though, these regulations exists because speculation and profit-chasing in agriculture is what lead to the dust bowl and worsened the great depression. We really, really don't want a repeat of that.
The amazing thing about people failing to learn from history is that everybody thinks they're too smart to (a) learn history or (b) follow rules enacted to prevent the disasters of yesteryear.
Learning from history is important but it’s much more important to do so in an inclusive manner. In fact, inclusive language is more important than anything else.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it a lot lately. We've already asked you a whole bunch of times not to do this. Eventually we ban accounts that won't stop.
Sure, but I think you should strive to run your community in a way where you’re policing the “I don’t endorse X, but I don’t understand why more people don’t do X” that this comment espouses https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47773488
You’re busy policing this while people are out there saying “Destroy their things and firebomb their houses”. So is it just that I made a mistake in my phrasing? Should I just frame the same comments in the style “I would never endorse X, but I don’t understand why others don’t do X”?
I can do that easily without LLM assistance if you like. But if you want your community to be exclusively endorsers of violence against enemies of a chosen tribe, then you should ban me so you can keep your little tribe of Ted Kaczynski fanboys.
This is one of those cases where the word "but" negates everything that precedes it.
If you think we haven't been moderating the type of posts you're talking about, you haven't been tracking HN moderation lately*—which is fine, why should/would you? But in that case you shouldn't be taking snarky swipes at the mods based on galactically mistaken assumptions.
More importantly, you shouldn't be pointing fingers at others instead of taking responsibility for your own bad behavior. Even if you were right in what you said, it wouldn't justify your breaking the rules. Moreover you have a longstanding pattern of doing this and we've been cutting you slack for years.
Okay, admittedly when I read these things I lose my mind and become a viral host for the nonsense because I feel the need to retaliate against what is clearly some kind of Blue Tribe mobbery. Clearly it’s a mistaken belief that you allow targeted mob-forming on your platform. Actually you’re just drowning under the load. Fine. What I can edit out I shall and I’ll try to keep in mind that you’re trying and failing, and doing this is just participating in the crap.
I’ll follow your comments for a mod log to see and I’ll refrain.
I do think it would justify breaking any rules that allow targeted mob-forming but since that’s not happening I’m happy to stand off.
Yup, that's exactly the youtube problem. It's really terrible for finding new interesting things. If you don't already know exactly what you want to watch, you'll never discover something new you might like.
For our DBs (which are often unsharded), we've found the best performance using the user account ID as the first part of the cluster key and then a sequential id for whatever the record is as the second.
It's not as good as just a sequential ID at keeping the fragmentation and data movement down. However, it does ultimately lead to the best write performance for us because the user data ends up likely still appending to an empty page. It allows for more concurrent writes to the same table because they aren't all fighting over that end page.
A lot of stuff does have interstate implications. Especially now that most corporations operate in an interstate fashion.
That said, I agree that it's overused. I personally think that the 9th amendment should be used in a lot of cases, like civil rights, instead of the interstate commerce law.
The supreme court, however, has basically decided that the 9th amendment doesn't really exist.
I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politician.
That's ultimately what keeps things like MJ illegal. There are just far too many people that will get upset about it if it were made federally legal.
My state, Idaho, has one such politician that is constantly bringing up and trying to find ways to keep the wacky tabacy out of the state. Including trying to amend the state constitution for it. He does this because he's mormon and the mormons are scared of the devil's lettuce.
This gets at something I think a lot of people don't really understand. They see polls that show strong support for policy X, and then complain that politicians don't enact it. What they fail to consider is that while a strong majority may be in favor of the policy, it's not the top (or top 3) priority, and they will support candidates that have the opposite position on X, if they support their top priority.
This is situation where well thought out (and moderately constrained) referendum process can help achieve the majority desire for a policy that would not otherwise be considered important enough to drive the selection of representatives.
Yeah, that's essentially what happened here in Oregon.
And the 2nd chapter of it is after the ballot measure passed, the state liquor commission drug its heels for a couple years, because most of their executives are far more conservative than the median voter here (a side effect of a lot of them being Salem locals vs Portland, but anyhow).
Eventually the state legislature got fed up with the obstructionism and passed a "ok, we're just doing it how CO did, stop stalling" bill.
And here we are. The sky didn't fall.
There's a lotta ways ballot measures can go into stupidity, but this is an instance where it helped force the bureaucracy to align with the majority voter position.
>(a side effect of a lot of them being Salem locals vs Portland, but anyhow).
Because their industry is in bed with government so their priority #1 is coordinating with the people of that industry. The actual "value producing" activity of buying, distributing, selling liquor and managing those relationships is a sideshow.
> They see polls that show strong support for policy X
i would imagine those polls are full of selection bias - even if the poller is trying to be as neutral as possible. People who would agree to participate in polls tend to have strong(er) feelings than those who don't.
> referendum process
instead of referendums, there should be a representative vote by the elected politician, but with an option for the voter to submit their own vote (provided they pass a cursory examination that certifies they have read and understood the bill they're voting for).
E.g., a senator or an elected politician has N number of votes for a bill, where N is the number of people he/she represents. If those people don't want to participate in a bill voting process, the politician will vote on behalf of them (like they do now, supposedly).
However, an individual voter who wishes to, can certify their understanding of said bill, and rescind the representative vote for his electorate and vote himself directly on the bill. The politician will now have N-1 votes on that same bill.
This means for issues of importance, the individual can choose to participate. For issues that they don't care about, but have a vague sense of direction, they have their votes delegated to the politician that they elected once every X years.
Also it doesn’t matter if there’s majority support for a lot of things because most people don’t vote. If you want to get a policy enacted make sure you and your friends vote in elections regularly.
You should argue with him he's acting like Satan. The mormons (I used to be one) say that Satan wanted to force everyone to be good, Jesus wanted each person to have free will and choose.
I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.
You've made about a dozen comments in this thread and they've escalated from "HOAs are unconstitutional" to "I'd rather shoot my fellow citizens than be drafted if weed isn't legal" to "driving high is fine, I've done it for decades." Each one a little more unhinged than the last, which is an accomplishment given where it started.
It reads less like a coherent political philosophy and more like someone who's been hitting the sacrament a little too hard this morning.
I smoke your "sacrament" daily, and cigarettes, and I'm terrified that people will think you're representative of either of those classes, or even a minority of them.
Most people in this thread broadly agree with you that marijuana should be legal. You're somehow picking fights with your own allies because they had the audacity to say they don't like the smell, or that driving impaired is bad. You're not defending freedom, you're being contrarian and hostile to anyone who doesn't arrive at your exact position with your exact intensity.
And the driving thing isn't a matter of opinion. "I've done it for decades and never caused an accident" is the exact argument every drunk driver makes right up until they do. Your anecdotal survival is not evidence of safety.
It's not about the smell. Secondhand marijuana smoke carries many of the same harmful compounds as cigarette smoke [1]. The issue is involuntary exposure in shared living spaces. And ballot measures are typically all-or-nothing: you can't vote yes on edibles but no on smoking in your apartment complex.
Until we start throwing cigar, pipe, and cigarette smokers in prison for smoking where I can smell it, I'm totally okay smelling some pot. The playing field needs to be leveled.
I don’t want my toddler exposed to secondhand pot smoke. Unfortunately it’s more common than secondhand cigarette smoke in my experience. I wouldn’t get upset on my own behalf but he’s too young to choose and it’s my responsibility to act in his behalf as much as I can.
Are you arguing that my toddler should be okay with it? The point is that it’s not about what I am okay with it’s about my being responsible for my son and what his adult self might want. We had opinions about the positive health effects of cigarettes in the 1940’s and 1950’s that turned out to be wrong. There’s a possibility you’re wrong about pot smoking too.
Government tobacco smoking bans in indoor spaces accessible to the public (or outdoor spaces near the entrances to such spaces) are not uncommon in the US, nor are private contractual (via leases for rental properties and sometimes CC&Rs that bind property owners) bans for non-public spaces.
Smoking (even of tobacco) can generally be banned in the CC&Rs of properties (multifamily complexes is the case where this makes the most sense) and by the landlord in any rented property, multifamily or subject to CC&Rs or not.
VOCs and carcinogens are a health hazard. Asthma, kids development, allergies, and occasional migraine trigger.
It’s not random we call it ‘dank’ or ‘skunk’ and if it’s good it should piss off your neighbours.
It’s 2026. Dry flower vapes get you higher, with less product, and sparing the lungs. They have a smell more in line with popcorn than a cigarette. They come in everything from one-hitter to portable-volcano. Fans exist too.
There’s a difference between something inherent to a process, and something added for basically for marketing reasons that has minimal/no positive effect in actual functionality.
> Dry flower vapes get you higher, with less product, and sparing the lungs.
This may be subjective as I have tried just about every dry vape out there and each time the high is underwhelming. For me, the traditional bong hit is king.
It's not just because marijuana "smells bad". Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxic chemicals as secondhand cigarette smoke and likely is similarly deleterious to your health [1]. I also believe everyone should have the right to be able to open their windows and have clean air come through. Smoking on balconies denies people this right. Edibles only effect the user and therefore should be permitted.
It doesn't have to be criminally illegal. Instead it could simply be civil. The apartment complex, which you do not own, would be the ones setting the rules here.
And you, of your own free choice, would have the choice to either follow the rules or go live somewhere else. The person you are responding to doesn't have an issue with you smoking in your own purchased home. Instead this was about apartment complexes.
And it wouldn't even have to be a law applied to you. It could be applied to the apartment complex. Apartment complexes already have to follow lots of laws. So they could simply be required to have this as a rule.
And then you, could make your libertarian choice to live there or not. Its not your apartment complex after all. And since its someone else property, they would absolutely have the free to make you not do this in their own property.
You aren't being forced to do anything that you didn't agree to. You aren't the apartment owner, you instead just signed the contract and have to follow the apartment rules.
I don't see why you get to complain about what someone else is doing with their own property. Its their property. What laws apply to them are none of your business as you simply signed the contract.
Oh good grief. This is such an uninformed and unnecessarily belligerent take.
We can and do have public nuisance laws which kick in when an individual is impinging upon the health, safety, comfort etc. of other people. This exists in jurisdictions all over the world for all kinds of things, the penalties are usually minor and applied only to repeat offenders. It is completely reasonable for someone to support the idea of these applying to marijuana use, in fact, in most jurisdictions where marijuana is legal, they probably already do. Yes, repeatedly stink up your neighbor's apartment and you may get a warning followed by a fine, deal with it. Your parent is not a Nazi and is not throwing stoners in prison. Perhaps go touch grass instead of smoking it now and then.
It got through via a ballot initiative. It wouldn't have been passed by the legislators in UT without that.
That's why the guy in my state, C. Scott Grow, has also been fighting to make ballot initiatives harder. He's terrified that an MJ initiative would make it's way in that way.
Republicans in Utah are also trying to remove the power from ballot initiatives because they're upset the Utahans passed an anti-gerrymandering initiative.
Yaeh this is a thing states do. South Dakota went in cahoots with the courts to cancel the ballot initiative to legalize weed, and California went in cahoots with the courts to sabotage prop 8 (the banning of gay marriage).
That's not why it was "struck down" by SCOTUS. It was struck down because California intentionally did not defend the case in SCOTUS, leaving the proponents (i.e., those representing the majority vote) to defend it in SCOTUS. Then SCOTUS determined the prop 8 voters didn't have standing to defend prop 8, essentially defaulting the decision through a perverse chickenshit technicality and remanding it back to the lower courts.
SCOTUS did not find gay marriage bans unconstitutional in that case. Only the 9th circuit did, and California intentionally stopped defending it at the 9th circuit because the 9th circuit is and was pro gay marriage.
If 90% of party A supporters support the issue, and 70% of party B supporters support and issue and the election is close to 50/50 with B in power. B putting forward the issue can make them lose the next election because that 30% will either withhold their vote or vote for the other party.
But if that same issue is a ballot measure, then the 90% of A voters and 70% of B voters will overwhelmingly pass it.
This is what I mean by a motivating issue. Nobody will withhold their vote if MJ stays illegal. But there are certainly people (mostly religious) that absolutely will withhold their vote if a politician makes it legal. Even if that's a super popular move.
That's why pretty popular things aren't done. It's also why unpopular things can be easily done. If nobody withholds their vote because of the "send the kids to the mines" act (because they are happy about the mandatory Bible study), then a politician can get away with really horrible things so long as they make the core of their voters happy. After all, you aren't going to let the other guy win now are you.
It's what's broken about parties and FPTP elections.
> I still don't get why Java is the only language that needs the heap to be carefully tuned.
Only tuning you should be doing is setting the heap size and algorithm (Though, size is likely enough).
> Like it hogs some memory at start, crashes if you go above a certain amount, and doesn't return memory to the OS when GC'd. Even Python and JS don't have those problems.
Unlike Python and I believe most javascript engines, the JVM uses moving garbage collectors. That's the primary reason why it hogs memory.
In these ready to return to OS languages, when something is freed or allocated they are literally calling "malloc" and "free" directly. That's why stuff tends to return back to the OS faster.
The JVM doesn't do that. When a GC runs in the JVM, the JVM picks up and moves live data to a new location. That means the JVM needs a minimum amount of free space to operate. The benefit of this is the JVM can allocate really fast, it's just a single pointer bump and a check to ensure there's enough space. It's pretty close to the same performance as the stack is in C++.
And if there's a lot of data that lives for a short period of time, the JVM frees that data very fast as well. There is little accounting that the JVM has to do to free stuff up because it's simply moving the live data.
For even the fastest allocators that python/javascript engines use, this isn't true. They have to keep track of the various allocation locations and the gaps in allocation when something is freed. And a request for allocation needs to ultimately find a location in the heap with enough room.
Java does have a memory issue, though, all objects in java are pretty bulky. This will hopefully be fixed in future versions when "value" types are added.
Thanks, that's a really good explanation. And makes sense, especially since Java objects are all constantly getting allocated/freed on the (virtual) heap rather than stack.
The GC strategy for Java works best when the JVM has a lot of memory to play with. That's a big reason why a lot of companies use it for the backends.
However, Java suffers when you start talking about small heaps. This has become a much bigger issue as containered applications have risen as a primary deployment method. There are active efforts ongoing to solve this problem and make Java more friendly to smaller memory footprints and containers in general.
The Go/python/javascript strategies end up working better in those situations. They have very fast startups and pretty low memory requirements. However, when you start talking about apps that need a lot of memory, they both end up suffering as their allocation strategies degrade as the memory being tracked grows. Especially if there's a large amount of memory churn. The JVM has about the best strategy for very high memory churn.
Yeah the Java way makes sense if it's the only thing running on that machine, or at least you know ahead of time how much RAM to budget to each thing. Which was often the case on servers. I'm not surprised if that performs better than Go in a way, but seems like Go does ok. If they really wanted a custom heap on top of preallocated memory in a Go program, couldn't they just do that?
The weirder part is that Java also used to be a bigger thing client-side, back when websites commonly included Java applets.
A major part of the problem isn't even that we don't have laws on the books, it's that funding to the enforcement agencies has been gutted to the point where they can mostly just go after extreme egregious violations or very easy to win cases. The IRS is in exactly the same boat.
reply