Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | illithid0's commentslogin

Thank you so much for sharing this. Not only is it a great post, but the site invokes such warm feelings of an internet long lost.

True, I love the little cat chasing the mouse in particular.


The power to impose tariffs is given to Congress in the Constitution. Exceptions are allowed but in rare and specific situations. The fact that SCOTUS struck it down means the tariffs as imposed were unconstitutional.

You can be for tariffs all you want, I'm not here to argue their efficacy. But you absolutely cannot with any intellectual honesty still be on the fence about whether he abused his power given this ruling.

It is not "flip flopping policy" to break the bounds of your Constitutional power and be shut down by one of the branches meant to check you.


I don't think the administration cares about the appearance of impropriety.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Constitutionality of his tariffs or their ability to accomplish the stated goals.

He can just ignore the courts.

Unless congress is willing to impeach him, he can run wild.


It is flip flopping policy as far as it was here one day and struck down the next. That's what matters to people attempting to start something here. I should have stated I was not interested in arguing the actual rule process, you have 6-3 vote from the Supreme Court in your favor.

It was absurd to think this was valid policy in the first place. The IEEPA clearly didn’t delegate unilateral tariff authority to the president, especially on the flimsy basis of a “trade emergency”.

If Trump wanted a durable trade policy, work with the legislative majority to pass a real policy with deliberation - just like they should have done with immigration.


Almost all legal experts said from the start the Trump’s approach to tariffs was unconstitutional.

So who else could be to blame for the flip-flopping?

The executive is supposed to uphold laws made by Congress, not throw spaghetti at the Supreme Court’s wall and see if it sticks.


I don't know, man. I'm at a point where not even the tangible effects on me that the policies and decisions some members of my family endorse are enough to get them to think twice.

I can sit right in front of them and describe the problems I'm now dealing with and point out the exact legislative changes that caused them and it's like their brains turn off until the subject changes. More than happy to pray for me, though.


Do you think there's a possibility that while they may love you and sympathize with your struggles, they recognize that with any policy some people will be negatively affected?

The idea is to have political policy that minimizes harm and maximizes benefit, for the most people.

Is it possible that this is the way they are viewing it, and that perhaps you are the one who isn't thinking critically because you're being directly negatively affected?


Definitely reasonable to question oneself in this way. But realistically, if someone is unwilling to engage with you about policies that negatively affect you, but instead offer their prayers, that "perhaps..." is working overtime.


Normally I'm pretty good at extending intellectual generosity. But for them, it's at the level of voting for a candidate who supports cuts to Medicaid and then wondering why it's suddenly infinitely harder for me to get through to anyone about assistance (not even for myself, for them) following staffing cuts.

"This isn't what I voted for" is a common utterance. They can't help themselves, so I do my best to help, while they undercut my options to help them.


I've worked as a security consultant with one or two companies (who shall remain nameless) whose sole product was a hardware device with a black-box software stack meant to be a plug-and-play lawful intercept compliance solution. Telecoms should be able to buy it, install it, and access a web panel to do their government-mandated business.

In the three or four year I worked with them, they would only let me do penetration testing of their user network, and never the segments where the developers were, and never the product itself. In speaking with their security team (one guy - shocker) during compliance initiatives, it was very clear to me that the product itself was not to be touched per the explicit direction of senior leadership.

All I can say is that if the parts of their environment they did let us touch are any indication of the state of the rest of their assets, that device was compromised a long time ago.


when I lived in NoVA I had a roommate that installed and serviced boxes that sound suspiciously similar.

SSL crackers to MITM all ISP user traffic


Certainly these devices exist and are installed daily to further steal our info, but are you sure these devices weren't DPI boxes? If you could give a little more detail I might know since I've worked with this type of equipment.


Yuck.


I quite like this! I've been looking into artists myself for a couple commissions but I hate using Instagram for just about anything. I gave it an example image and gave me several artists in my immediate area that look promising.

Nice work!


I was trying to do something similar last year and gave up because it felt futile. That said, it was the push I needed to try Rockbox, and I haven't looked back. Managing things via the file system is really nice.


I started on my Linux box and despite many apps claiming to support iPods, none would actually work. I ended up getting an old Mac mini running again and I’m using that for now. I’ve never given Rockbox a good look, I should check it out.


While there are bits of truth in this comment, much of it is exaggerated and unsubstantiated, namely:

- Being a verified Russian asset

- Working with Russia to specifically help elect Trump to the office of president

- Specifically seeking to weaken US democracy

Going to need sources and supporting evidence proportionate to the extent of your claims.


Which bits are true?


Came back to answer but the comment got flagged, but I think I remember it being that he chose not to publish RNC info received at roughly the same time as the DNC emails.

That said, I just fact-checked myself and found that the RNC stuff was already public and that was Assange's reason for not publishing. So I'm not sure anything in the comment I was replying to can be substantiated.


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

Search: