IP should either exist for everyone (which would cripple LLM providers) or no one, in which case the Pirate Bay and shadow libraries should be fully open.

There was no greater cause of human suffering in the 20th century than the worldwide attempts to build communist governments.

I think it's been pretty well established that most legislators do not take the time to understand the details of bills prior to voting.

Moreover, these articles refer to an attempt to question how grant money already given (and presumably spent) was used.

Scrutiny is an inherent part of the powers of the purse. I.e. "we gave you $100 million to provide disaster relief, economic development in our sphere of influence, etc - what did you do with it?"

It's fair to want to retain the spending being questioned, but Congress is explicitly responsible for this function.

Congress does not, by and large, get down to that level. They are typically approving a line time that encompasses a form of lump sum (i.e. "$100 million to NSF across these categories").

You can see the budget request here: https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2026

Defense spending would typically be a gruesome bidding process.

But either way, your proposal must at some point speak to something a generalist would understand. And that is how it should be - anything else is taxation without representation.

Yes, this means a high level summary generally focused on ends rather than the gory details of the means.

An expert acting in good faith should be able to provide this or, in the spirit of the Feynman technique, I would argue they aren't much of an expert at all.

Claiming that the transcripts were generated by a nonexistant AI is fraud and should be treated as such.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43623370

Points: 5

# Comments: 3

My entire point is that these things are seldom so black and white as put forward. The US administration has a self serving answer, but so do the French and this anonymous scientist. Which do you think is less professionally damaging for a European, being denied entrance due to views on American politics or being denied based on mishandling of classified material?

In an ideal world, I would prefer to see any mishandling of classification prosecuted, that seldom is how it works.

Without knowing a timeline, it isn't even clear which administration was running things under which events.

As for whether they knowingly let a spy leave, that would depend on a full timeline.

This feels like an odd statement, given how many of the most repressive regimes in human history were or are secular. Maybe the "properly functioning" part is doing the heavy lifting, but if so, it makes the statement almost meaningless.

You can see this dichotomy in Scheme. Versions <= 5 were teaching first, everything else second. Versions 6+ tried to do both.

Does it? Does a human need to examine everything posted? You can certainly send letters without them going through a human moderator. Only what is flagged by a scanner? What if nothing is flagged? What should be flagged?

Agreed. There was a much smaller emphasis on Damascus steel in early seasons. If you go back and rewatch you can see the frequency pick up as they praised and required Damascus more and more.