Hacker News

This won't happen. Mostly because the next administration that is a counter to this current administration won't happen. The electoral process in the US is effectively cooked.

Great incentive for a president to do whatever he pleases then just attempt a coup.

The future of the US depends on political candidates attempting to win the public over on the merits of their argument and the quality of their character instead of being conmen on billionaire payrolls or billionaires themselves.

Instead, we're ruled by these two dumb, evil political parties that radical centrists treat like elemental forces of nature. It's a play being put on for your benefit. Your vote changes nothing. The Heel W. Bush administration had presided over the most consciously evil things done in both foreign and domestic policy, with the full knowledge that it was illegal, and then Golden Boy Obama came and indemnified everyone. The person who illegally destroyed the CIA torture videotapes became the head of the CIA.

The country is a joke and quickly turning into a failed state, and upper middle-class people are being distracted by sock puppets because as the top 20%, they aren't suffering in the least.

edit: advocating for the prosecution of the last administration by the next is simply advocacy for dictatorship. There is no reason for anyone to leave the presidency if civic intellectual thought has degenerated so much that they think that this is a wise or democratic thing to do. If you vote in a criminal, there's no clawback after you get robbed. The reason this is a failed state is because we're exclusively putting criminals on the ballot, from President to dog catcher. Turns out that non-criminals can't raise millions of dollars to get a job.

Being held accountable in the next administration is pretty much the opposite of what a democratic society needs. It's a never ending cycle. Let the court system handle this.

Are you new to the club? I saw these problems you're talking about with Biden, Trump1, Obama and Bush Jr. Of course I'm not old enough to really know about what Clinton or Bush Sr or Reagan or anyone before that did.

I know it's super annoying to have someone rain on your "but THIS stuff is REALLY bad!" parade, but that the rulers are corrupt isn't new. It's just new to a lot of people.

The myth of the Supreme Court having any check on executive power was disproven by the "switch in time to save 9", where Owen Roberts agreed to stop obstructing The New Deal so FDR wouldn't implement court-packing and term limits. That was almost 90 years ago.

That’s like saying we shouldn’t hold a drunk driver accountable for his driving because we all had a beer sometimes.

Nobody cares if an admin "rules via executive order". What we care about is whether they rule according to the law. That is, for example: the administration is free to fire whoever it wants from the civil service as long as it follows the laws about how and when this is done. This administration, however, has repeatedly fired federal employees without following the law.

In more than 85% of cases brought against the administration, lower courts have ruled that the administration has broken the law.

So, you can decide if you think SCOTUS overruling those decisions is an indication of a problem, or justice winning out.

I also don't care when an administration says "We will find a way to ...." - I care about whether they do so, and do so in accordance with the law. The Biden administration followed SCOTUS rulings on its orders, and AFAIK, did not find workarounds for any of the things you mention.

At the same scope and scale?

Can you see a problem here, a failure of the intended system of checks and balances?

And Obama did this. See his famous pen and phone quote:

"We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I've got a pen, and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.."

The eviction moratorium is probably the strongest example available, and I don't think it's a good one for Biden. But one controversial episode doesn't establish a precedent for systematic noncompliance with court orders. If anything, it stands out precisely because it was unusual enough to generate criticism across the political spectrum.

Sources:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/anatomy-screw-biden-evi...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

> ... the US government announced $2 billion in investments in ... a range of startups ... could be make-or-break investments for many companies that are likely years away from a product that could see widespread use. ...

The article doesn't make it sound like this is "going towards existing approaches". I totally get that you may not support these company's approaches to quantum processer design, but we'd be getting rather into the weeds if that's the hair we're splicing.

There's nothing to envy. They're a hired punching bag to put distance between you and the management.

In most cases, even the PM doesn't know this. They were specifically selected to not think too deeply. Anything you say that is brutally correct and they take the wrong way is received as mean and arrogant. Those incidents give management some ammunition if they ever want to get rid of you.

Because the startup is going to buy $2 billion worth of services from IBM.

I suppose it’d be in the details. Like, are they locked into that investment, or is it something with checkpoints and milestones that let them bail out after a year and a few mil? What’s the ownership structure of any new ip? Etc.

It’s easy to drop a story like this, get a win for investing in the future, and then quietly disassemble it as soon as the cameras turn away.

Or, it would be easy, if this administration didn’t consider laws beneath them.

Believe the announcement when the check clears.

Divestment costs

This is just not true. There has been tremendous progress in the field. Starting with google’s experiment in 2019 on showing quantum advantage - admittedly on a useless problem, but quantum advantage nevertheless, to fault tolerant encodings by the Harvard group to recent demonstrations of a road toward advantage in generative models by goggle, to name a few. It’s still far away from running Shor’s algorithm to factor relevant numbers and break RSA and the like, but even there dramatic progress is being made, see, e.g., https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9665

The principle of ‘Standing’, however, means that you also cannot sue unless you can show actual harm to yourself.

Yes, these contradict each other somewhat.

The Trump family is a fully integrated business. Start a war, sell weapons. Negotiating peace deals and looking for investors at the same time.

Sue the government and be in charge of the agency you sue.

What does your tangent about feelings have to do with the fact that the money is illegally allocated? That is the theme OC is pointing out.

> But a member of the US Congress is now arguing that those deals are illegal, as Congress did not allocate the money for this purpose—instead, it was meant to support public research in semiconductors.

That is the theme. Illegal use of public money. It’s called crony capitalism.

That is basically the theme. You've figured out the actual grift. The crazy thing is how these same magazines will promote actual fake industries like crypto, while demonizing industries that produce actual results like AI. The goal seems to be to get Americans to invest assets into currencies likely already controlled by foreign entities while discouraging them from developing their own potentially revolutionary technology.

Plenty of that on Ars Technica, even by the same author. Baseless silly whataboutism as usual.

Take a deep breath and get your meds updated.

waves at most executive decisions of this administration

That's so good it'll happen the third day after never. Neat idea though