Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | barney54's commentslogin

I don't know why you are getting downvoted for this comment. Bondi's promoting the DOW during a hearing was bizarre.

It was also indefensible. A few years back she campaigned on prosecuting pedophiles and, well, as AG she refused to do that. She went as far as protecting them.

Republicans simply don’t use words the same way others do. If you say you like flowers in the garden you mean they should be there. If they say they like flowers in the garden, they mean they would like to be paid to control whether they are there.

[flagged]


[flagged]


We’re not that deep. One is bad enough. Biden was not senile or a pedophile. That was an obvious attempt to rub smear off of Trump. We do comprehend the existence of propaganda, it’s just that we can’t do anything about it anymore than you can.

The insistence that Biden was not senile amounts to gaslighting.

> two senile pedophiles as president in sequnce

two? Who was the one other than Trump? (Which we don't even know that one for sure. We just know he protects them from prosecution)


Trump openly stated one of the perks of running an underage beauty pageant was being able to walk in on them in the dressing room.

He has himself admitted to being a pedophile...


I can't believe you are making me defend this guy.

It is creepy as shit and I wouldn't allow him near my kids, but there is a very specific legal definition of pedophile and looking isn't the same as touching. It dilutes the term when you use it the wrong way.


No clue what you're on about:

> Pedophilia is defined as a sexual interest in prepubescent children.

When they touch them they're not a pedophile, they're a pedophile molester or a pedophile rapist. It has adds an additional word.

He likes looking at children in states of undress. He's a pedophile.

And, if dozens of people are to be believed across multiple lawsuits and 30,000 files at the FBI he's going to literal war to hide, he's a pedophile rapist too.


>It is creepy as shit and I wouldn't allow him near my kids, but there is a very specific legal definition of pedophile and looking isn't the same as touching. It dilutes the term when you use it the wrong way.

Then why wouldn't you allow him near your kids? If he isn't legally speaking a pedophile, what would you be worried about?

If it were the case that "looking isn't the same as touching", child porn wouldn't be illegal. Trump is a pedophile because he's attracted to underage girls, he isn't not a pedophile if he looks but doesn't touch.

And there is a mountain of (granted circumstantial) evidence from the Epstein files that have been released to suggest he's probably done more than just look.


I want to see him die in prison.

I only care about the legal definitions because that's how you get someone arrested, convicted, and thrown in jail forever.


He's already been found liable for sexual assault, and I don't doubt a case for pedophilia could stick if the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt - he drew a picture of a naked girl on a birthday card for Epstein FFS. Just his conspiracy to keep the Epstein files hidden and protect anyone culpable (in his party) alone would put him in jail until he died if SCOTUS hadn't decided that anything a sitting President did while in office was legal.

Unfortunately he's going to die a free and wealthy man, and be buried with honors. All we can hope is that he does it soon and that he soils himself on the way out.


Republicans have been following their overtly pro-pedophilia agenda for a while now. Bondi didn't hear from any victim, she failed to protect them and censor their informations in the files, while putting extra care in hiding the pedophile oligarchs that abused them.

Are you saving that an organization should be able to put together a documentary to criticize Trump and his supporters? Because that’s what Citizen’s United allowed. If you don’t support that, then the criticism will only come from rich individuals.


That’s because net metering is a transfer from people who can’t afford solar to the rich people who can. https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2024/04/22/californias-ex...


Which is true. But it's a rug pull for people who spent money on their panels expecting an RoI. Were existing installations grandfathered in?


Yes, existing installations get 20 years of grandfathered rates [1].

Which makes it more of a ladder pull than a rug pull...

[1] https://www.sce.com/clean-energy-efficiency/solar-generating...


The first round of people paid way more for their solar panels though, and those higher prices helped bootstrap the industry. Should people who paid much less for panels get the same reward? I'm having trouble getting outraged about this, it seems to be incentives working exactly as they should.


I agree, and maybe my "ladder pull" comment comes off as too negative. Most early solar buyers were either in it for environmental reasons or for a modest return on investment. I don't think many were expecting a windfall.


That's fine. If we have enough X then stop paying people to build more X.


Late thought: we continue to reward those who built more X when we needed more X, and that's fine too.


Solar has become all about ROI these days just like home ownership has become an investment.


And it really want's Ewan that was put out about the KTM rejection--he wanted to ride the BMWs, but Charley Boorman was pissed. Charley had dreamed of the KTMs for years.


Wow this is dumb. The reason I’m on Windows is because of Office. For my needs Office on Windows is the best—otherwise I’d be on a Mac or Linux. I use AI everyday and never found a use case for Copilot. So why rebrand Office, their best product after Copilot, their worst product?


They're not rebranding Office, the app suite.

They had Office.com, a hub website, and a desktop app called Office that was basically just a wrapper for said hub website. They also had a mobile all-in-one app called Office. As far as I can tell, those are what are being rebranded and made to default to an AI chat view on login, not Office as a whole.


Didn't they put Office in the cloud? If so, why is Windows needed?

You could run anything plus Office.


The web version is a complete reimplementation with about as many backward compatibility problems as LibreOffice.


Actually LibreOffice has better backward compatibility than MS Office now. If you have a MS Office 2003 file that current MS Office can't open, try LibreOffice.


Maybe Office 2003, but modern .docx files often don't work right in the web version of Office or in LibreOffice.


But that wouldn't be backward-compatibility? Also when the MS-pushed web versions can't get it right, does it matter?


LibreOffice can't properly render ODT files created with OpenOffice-before-Oracle. I highly doubt their DOCX support is any better.


Doubt what you like, but I "rescued" old MS Office documents for my grandfather with that. Also this is a common fear when leaving MS Office, so you can bet they work on that. I never had someone complain over OO-compatibitlity until now, so there is that.


When LibreOffice appeared on the stage, that was actually my first test back then: opening an existing ODT document I had written. It was already displayed incorrectly at the time.


Are there test files downloadable somewhere, so I can check that myself?


"I don't like X, so I'm guessing Y is bad."


Which is now piece by piece becoming the Desktop version by wrapping it in some WebView junk.


Or they like staying in business and producing energy that people willingly purchase.


If they're not doing evil work, why all the secrecy? It's not like they're going bankrupt either since, like you mentioned, the demand is not going away


Because people are hipocrites - our stated goals (clean environment, fair business) are different from the actual ones (get a lot of stuff and energy cheaply)


But these shouldn't be in contradiction. Oil and gas will end when they will be unprofitable, priced out by much cheaper renewables. Of course this will result in more and cheaper stuff and energy, boost economic growth rates not suppress them.


It's hard to compete with something that is allowed to externalize the majority of its costs.


That’s the theory. What’s happening is the complete opposite. Thank the government for it.


Well, regardless of what government does, renewables will eventually price out oil and gas. And the government and the megacorps will be on their side because that way they will be making more money. Not before.

No one is trying to limit renewables just for the sake of it. They are trying to do so because so far renewables don't allow to make much money while oil and gas does. There won't be any reason for the powers that be, to resist them once this situation reverses.


You could say the same about any drug lord.

If your business harms the masses maybe you should overthink your business model.


Sadly Amazon only revealed plans, not an actual reactor.


I don’t know of a shop that doesn’t have some sales at some time. Sales are just such powerful selling tools.

Factorio is a counter example. Factorio never goes on sale, which is kind of nice because when you buy it you know you couldn’t have gotten a better price, but without sales you aren’t as motivated to buy it for a lower price than usual.


It is not moral to break the law in the furtherance of fraud. That’s the point.


But if the fraud secures the livelyhood of $bignum children and they would starve without their parents committing that fraud?


I think my son would rather have me in his life than have me in jail.


Community input is nice, but we first need working small reactors. Until we see that there is no need to talk about community input. And so far small reactors keep taking longer to get built than estimates.


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

Search: