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

GPU smuggling to China has already happened.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...



I lived in California for 26 years. If this is true, nobody listens.


They do. In my HOA we let the grass go brown to conserve water and, at a domestic level, we rarely took baths (vs showers).


You can not say this without the caveat that it is location dependent. This is an illegal action in some cities and states. Like in California, where that video was taken, yellow means STOP if you can safely do so. Both of these cars had ample time to stop and chose to accelerate to make the light.


How can you tell both cars had ample time to stop? We didn't see how close they were to entering the intersection in the video.

They entered the intersection on a yellow light, which is perfectly legal if they could not stop.


DuckDuckGo and Kagi allow you to remove entire sites from search results and it is the best feature of these websites.


I get Kagi since you pay for it, but doesn't using a logged in account with DDG defeat the purpose of using DDG? How does having a search history associated with your DDG account improve things? You're just moving who knows your search history from one org to another


If you are not logged in, your search history may be "not associated with you account", but it still is associated with you.

It's more a matter of whom do you trust. Private mode in browsers still gathers unique user IDs, fingerprinting is widespread and fairly precise. The "logged in" part doesn't change that much.


You don't need an account for DDG. I assume the record keeping for which sites you exclude is cookie or session based.


And so the zombie apocalypse begins.


"News"

I'm not saying this didn't happen but I wouldn't trust Mark Zuckerberg if he said the sky was blue. He is trying to curry favor with the new administration and he is not above lying or embellishing what really happened.


Ok, so they're making that up according to you? Wouldn't they be investigated and if it turns out to be BS they would get an enormous fine? The Biden administration can easily sue them, why wouldn't they do that? Maybe because they know it's true, and they don't want to draw more attention to it, and they don't want an investigation?


1. The Biden admin is already suing them for a different reason.

2. The Biden admin won't be there to sue them in 7 days.

3. I'm not saying this didn't happen, I'm saying Zuckerberg is a habitual liar and I wouldn't believe him if he said his name was Mark.


3: Fair enough, but you also have to consider what is wise for him to say and not. You can't just make any shit up and get away with it. He might say certain things and certain other things not to aid his agenda, but I don't think he just makes this stuff up.


> You can't just make any shit up and get away with it.

Trump and Elon Musk literally just make any shit up and get away with it.


And there are clearly side effects [1], and it was already clear before this news that this was being censored. We just have confirmation from the CEO of Facebook now.

[1]: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/12/11/revealed-the-full-hidden...


The title.

>It's worth noting that the title of this article


This is clearly not an imitation. Parody if nothing else which is protected by fair use.


The imitation rule states that it's perfectly fine to run parody accounts as long as you clearly state that it's a parody. There are a ton of accounts named Elon Musk Parody, Biden Parody and similar

Without it every post of a famous person was botted with 100 accounts with identical display name, pfp that tried to promote scams like with YouTube comments


Here's an account that calls itself Michelle Obama (not even Michelle's Obama) after the parody rule went into effect (unlike Elon's Musk). It doesn't label itself a parody. It's still there. https://x.com/TaxpayerEnrique


The user says they were banned within hours of Elon taking over Twitter. New Parody rules did not come into affect until November 2022.


I replied to your comment about what constitutes imitation and why that rule exists. Neither of us have any idea about the details of that particular ban


I know why the rule exist. Getting banned for a rule that did not exist at the time is an overreach from a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist.


Please indulge in my conspiracy theory as to why Bluesky will likely end up in the same place as Twitter[0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42623590


Eric Goldman echoed it here as well in this section: "The Implications of Trump’s Election for Section 230" in his 2024 internet year in review. [0]

[0] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/01/2024-internet-...

He says Section 230 is on the chopping and extinction block in 2025 and he would be shocked if it made it to 2026.


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

Search: