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

No, it’s not true. The bill which banned TikTok (H.R. 7521 Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act)[1] was introduced by Mike Gallagher and Raja Krishnamoorthi in 2024, but a near identical bill, the ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act (H.R.1081)[2] was introduced by those same lawmakers in February of 2023, long before the Gaza War began, though it did not make it out of committee at that time. It’s conceivable that the bill’s passage was prioritized by house leadership due to concerns about content on TikTok, but the text of the bill contains no reference to the Israel-Palestine conflict and its very obvious from public statements by both co-sponsors that the primary motivation for this bill was concern with Chinese influence.

[1] https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240311/HR%207521%20Up...

[2] https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr1081/BILLS-118hr1081ih....


The bill had no traction, "until Oct. 7. The attack that day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against TikTok, Helberg said. People who historically hadn’t taken a position on TikTok became concerned with how Israel was portrayed in the videos and what they saw as an increase in antisemitic content posted to the app."

"How TikTok Was Blindsided by U.S. Bill That Could Ban It" (https://www.wsj.com/tech/how-tiktok-was-blindsided-by-a-u-s-...)

> its very obvious from public statements by both co-sponsors that the primary motivation for this bill was concern with Chinese influence.

Here's an op-ed authored by bill sponsor Mike Gallagher entitled, "Why Do Young Americans Support Hamas? Look at TikTok.": https://www.thefp.com/p/tik-tok-young-americans-hamas-mike-g...


Around the time the second bill was passed, banning TikTok was polling at 50%. Why make this complicated? Banning TikTok is popular. People don’t like it because it’s brain rot. Many vice bans poll highly.

Completely disagree. Look around, mass protests start and governments fall when banning social media. There are 80 million daily active users of TikTok in the US, Trump would never, ever be so stupid as to piss off 80 million people by suddenly blocking their favourite app. That's the whole reason of this standoff.

Iraq today is a self-governing parliamentary democracy and the US has had no direct say in their governance since the first parliament was seated in 2006. That the interim government installed by the US was not democratically elected doesn’t say all that much, especially given the country was in a state of civil war immediately following the removal of Saddam from power.

Democracy is a tool, and any tool can be used for good and bad. By good, that means for us full equlity, including self determination.

As an Assyrians, my nation suffered greatly under the old and the new regime, and will most certainly be eradicated.

Democracy didn't stop my assyrians from being taught Arabs and Kurds came to civilize, it didn't stop endless settlement of Arabs and Kurds, it certainty didn't stop the death threats, and most certianly didn't give us a voice that we could use, and it didn't help my nation from being forced to flee even in times of peace(like today).

After all my nation never chose to be part of said Iraq(or Turkey) and by extension it didn't chose to be part of said democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_independence_movement


This was a joint agreement between two sovereigns. You’re correct to say that it’s within the power of a sovereign to reneg on their word, but it’s a violation of international law and the UK would have every right as a sovereign itself to seek redress through whatever means it deems appropriate.

Given the demand for healthcare is extremely inelastic, almost certainly.

You can think killing someone is justified without thinking they are morally culpable. There’s a reason the laws of war don’t endorse summary execution of surrendering combatants, beyond the practical benefits of encouraging more humane conduct towards your own troops.

We are at full employment. The federal reserve estimates the natural rate of unemployment at being between 3.8 and 4.5 percent. Currently, unemployment is 4.4%

We are not, based on corporations laying off workers to reset wages downward, offshoring to India and LATAM, and it taking 6-12 months for workers to find jobs. Large US companies are making every effort to disempower workers, and they should be provided no advantages in acquiring talent when it exists domestically.

Layoff announcements top 1.1 million this year, the most since 2020 pandemic, Challenger says - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/04/layoff-announcements-this-ye... - December 4th, 2025

The Fed can't help America's young tech workers who are struggling to find a job - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45705212 - October 2025

Millions of Workers Are Left Out of the 'Low-Hire, Low-Fire' US Job Market - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45414795 - September 2025

Transcript of Chair Powell’s Press Conference - https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCprescon... - September 17th, 2025

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45308049 (citations)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

https://layoffs.fyi/

EDIT: @SilverElfin: I remain supportive of the idea of issuing O-1 visas to exceptional talent, if exceptional ability and achievement can be proven in an objective manner. A degree or credential does not make one exceptional (imho).


Labor reallocation occurs even during periods of full employment. Companies lose market share to rivals, businesses decide to spend money on capital expenditures that automate away existing roles, etc. If your goal is to stop immigration until layoffs cease to exist, you’re essentially calling for a permanent moratorium.

I am calling for a temporary moratorium for issuing new worker visas based on the current economic macro and existing immigrant worker base in the US companies can pick from, yes. I support the current $100k H-1B fee, in perpetuity. The domestic workforce exists, it is a choice to not pick from the domestic labor pool. Choices have consequences.

The domestic workforce exists, but the skilled workers are employed already. There is unemployment in America at low skill levels where companies don’t want to hire those workers at any price. It isn’t a viable choice if you are an employer and have spent time hiring. Most companies are definitely willing if it was a choice.

Please prove this assertion with citations. There is robust evidence skilled workers are underemployed or unemployed for substantial periods of time. If you cannot prove this assertion, please do not assert it as fact.

I don’t think there are good studies on this. What’s the robust evidence you’re referring to? Does it use good definitions for “skilled”? Does it prove that specific unemployed workers would have been employed by the specific employers who hired an immigrant?

I noticed you said “large companies”. Does that mean you think small companies or startups should get different treatment?

We’re contemplating jailing people for buying manufactured goods at the market price now?

Yes? Reports are that OpenAI is buying unfinished memory kits which they have no capacity to complete. It appears that OpenAI is just buying them to remove them from the market and damage their competitors. In United States, that used to be considered against the law if we were actually enforcing such things.

Since COVID, this has been the norm for any industry that requires chips.

Operation handbook now dictates that you should have 3-4 years of all the ICs you'll need for production so you don't end up like the car manufacturers.


The reason my 2018 Chevrolet has HDR radio and my wife's 2024 doesn't.

Massively over inflating your vehicles to the point they can't move them in the market?

I doubt this is to create artificial scarcity. Especially when OpenAI is the biggest player thought to be able to build AGI first and that it is now backed by the US & the Saudis.

> thought to be able to build AGI first

Who still thinks this?


The US Government, Saudis, consumer/private investors apparently or at least the one that can build the most economically useful AI. I myself believe Google is most likely.

As always, it's the intent that matters.

For the sake of argument, what if Amazon decided tomorrow that they would secure exclusive contracts with all food suppliers and then hoard all the food to starve out the people they don't want to have it? Or at least, drive up the price of food so it becomes completely unaffordable? I know people can simply grow their own food so it's a bit different, but hopefully it gets the point across. It's anti-trust on an unprecedented level.


But OpenAI legitimately needs HBM. Amazon in this instance doesn't need food and is doing purely to create artificial scarcity. If OpenAI were to actually not use the HBM then it could mean something.

That's the whole problem: it's unlikely that OpenAI will actually use all of that HBM. It seems probable that they are using it to create artificial scarcity for their competitors.

"needs" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument...

"As always, it's the intent that matters."

That's certainly not a universal Legal Standard. If I'm harmed, but you didn't "intend" to harm me, does that nullify my Claim?

Hardly.


Lack of intent doesn’t mean your claim is nullified. “Intent matters” means it’s taken into account when deciding what damages were wrought

Voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, degrees of murder, hate crimes.

IANAL, but yes, I believe it can nullify the claim. Bumping into someone on the sidewalk is only battery if the prosecution demonstrates intent to harm.

> I know people can simply grow their own food

Small thing, but this is not simple or realistic at all. How does someone in an apartment grow enough food for their family?


Yeah it would definitely still be a problem, but history shows that life finds a way. Even if everyone has to eat nothing but planted potatoes from any patch of grass that one can lay eyes on.

What history has taught us is that life finds a way by staying together and each person having their function within society, only some of which is growing or producing food.

They didn't buy "manufactured goods", they reserved 40% of the yearly wafer output for the whole world that haven't even been made yet for themselves.

Then if AI were the only consumer of wafers they would fall short of declaring themselves an illegal monopoly.

The Sherman Antitrust Act has outlawed abuses of monopsony power since 1890.

What we should really be asking is, why did we ever stop jailing wanton criminals like Scam Alt-Man?


Simple: they create value for the right people. Namely, politicians who get their donations, and a generation that, despite not having enough children to grow the economy organically, doesn't want to work any... er... wants to retire.

Thus, they invest in retirement and pension funds, who in turn invest the money in businesses to earn a return. Since that return must increase constantly, and organic growth is no longer possible, you have to pull shenanigans as a businessman to meet the requirements of the shareholders, lest they kick you out of the plane with a golden parachute.

So we let them do those shenanigans and the politicians don't do anything about it.


  > they invest in retirement and pension funds, who in turn invest the money in businesses to earn a return
maybe not a popular opinion but, this is the original sin imo; putting retirement/pension on the market makes for so many perverse incentives to keep things growing at any cost...

The system is perverse per se,

you create money based on debt, and eternal growth, and devalue savings, and force people to bet in order to try to preserve savings value, then each ten or fifteen years you allow someones to harvest the rewards of the casino.

And when population start to decrease (on developed countries), you rise the alarm, "more population is needed due to the decline in the birth rate", promoting an eternal growth that would need the resources several planets if everyone had a decent standard of living.


Used to be someone had to crack the whip. Now the workers do it to themselves.

I find it fascinating that he's had the benefit of the doubt for soooo long.

This is the shitcoin-for-your-eyeball-scans guy; the guy who didn't tell the board of his own company that he controlled their startup fund through an alias.


Yes, and I actually think it's a symptom of advanced societal decay that you think this is somehow an unreasonable proposition.

What OpenAI is doing will drive up prices for years, shredding consumer welfare, limiting competition and forcing marginally-profitable products off the market, and they're not even going to use the RAM. They're wrecking supply chains simply because they no longer have any technical advantage now that Google and Anthropic have caught up and passed them, and have to resort to dirty tricks like this and digital heroin Sora to try and justify their valuation. No functioning society would or should allow you to get away with that.

Frankly, much worse things than jail should happen to Altman for this kind of torching of the commons, and jail is the watered-down compromise position.


> Frankly, much worse things than jail should happen to Altman for this kind of torching of the commons, and jail is the watered-down compromise position.

Some days I think the devastating crash of the economy that will come if the bubble bursts is the least worst outcome. Do people not feel like the tensions around AI will not soon become internationally geopolitical?

(It's already nationally geopolitical in the USA: Trump is trying to assert federal control over the states' rights to set their own legislation)


People go to prison for market manipulation all of the time.

went to prison.

In the USA, nobody need ever go to prison for market manipulation anymore; they simply have to be able to pay the price necessary for a pardon. No logical consistency applies to the process.


A gross mischaracterization, really.

1. Said "consumer" is effectively hoarding Supply, and thus distorting the Market. 2. Said "consumer" has no effective means to either Deploy nor Utilize said products as neither the Data Centers nor the Energy required to power them are in existence. 3. Said "consumer" has articulated his belief that the Taxpayer should "backstop" his endeavors in some capacity, as well.

If you don't find this offensive in the least and possibly criminal at worst, then I don't understand your thought process.


Didn't they sign some big contacts to lock in non-market prices?

If the speeds aren’t appropriate for the built environment, then the limits should be changed or the environment should be changed. Enforcement of the law should be consistent regardless of the quality of the law.

The speeds are appropriate for the roads generally. I mean, at the lowest level speed limits are a matter of social consensus so the broad public is tautologically correct.

The problem is that knocking the magic number on the sign down by 5-15 and then simply not enforcing it too seriously results in less screeching Karens harassing the politicians who then harass the bureaucracy than taking a hard line about "well akshually this is the engineered speed for the road".


>Is C the ideal language for vibe coding? I think I could mount an argument for why it is not, but surely Rust is even less ideal

I was really hoping you were going to make this argument, based upon the title of the piece! Still a good read, but if you have the inclination I hope you loop back around to weighing the pros and cons of vibe coding in different languages


Pipedream Labs is trying to implement a standard delivery tunnel + robotic delivery system, but yeah, I’m afraid they’re facing a serious uphill battle in terms of land use restrictions in the existing built environment

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

Search: