cachehit

>First of all there is zero trade between the US and Russia currently, same with North Korea.

No, there is trade, $3.5b worth of it. But even if there wasn't, why would they get an explicit exemption?

It's national security to destroy all of your alliances? In that case, what is the reason Russia is exempt from these tariffs? Reverse-psychological warfare?

>They didn't actually "trust" us before. I'm not sure how you'd measure that anyways. From my reading of foreign news they're mostly taking it in stride, having seen this coming since last year, and not being particularly surprised by it. This zeitgeist only exists in half of America right now.

It's hard for me to overstate how wrong this is. In my country Denmark, everyone, everywhere is talking about this and people are generally worried. I hear it in the supermarkets. We absolutely did trust the US until now. For instance, the entire Danish public sector runs on Microsoft. Nobody ever considered that to be an issue. Now there is political talk about how that can be undone. Several of my peers who read HN and considered US-based, YC-backed to be the ultimate way to launch a startup are talking about the liability involved. Mind you, this is not the typical "I hate America!" rhetoric that has always existed to some degree everywhere, this is risk management: "Can I trust that the US is stable enough for me to bet on?"

You may not think it matters because the US is as strong as it is, or maybe you don't care. But the trust and thereby soft power that has been destroyed in these few months is generational.

You don't think F1 would follow the law?

This gave me something to think about. Thank you.

>And the justices he appointed would uphold the constitution if he tried it.

I don't feel that's a given. But even if they do, it needs to be enforced which feels much less likely.

>If you are referring to taking wealth by force from people that earned it and giving to people that didn't earn it, yes it's 'communist'

No, it's taxation. A pretty common phenomenon.

>The people have the power.

What do you picture will happen because of protests, exactly? That the administration realizes the error of its ways? Because it seems more likely to me that they would use it as an excuse to implement more autocratic measures.

Only if you don't learn anything while developing. Which is also never the case.

I wrote a linter for schemas (Postgres only): [link redacted]

I've found it to be a pretty useful way of establishing patterns for data modelling in a team.

Cursor is at $100m ARR. People (users, not just investors) are giving them money, not because they expect to see value in a couple of years.

>they’re not a product

I think it's pretty fair to say that they have close to doubled my productivity as a programmer. My girlfriend uses ChatGPT daily for her work, which is not "tech" at all. It's fair to be skeptical of exactly how far they can go but a claim like this is pretty wild.

>I saw someone saying 80% of doctors believe that LLM's are trustworthy consultation partners.

See, now that is something I don't know why I should trust: a random person on the internet citing a statistics that they saw someone else say.

>can we stop pretending with the generic name for ChatGPT?

What? I use several LLM's, including ChatGPT, every day. It's not like they have it all cornered..