doom2

The other thing making it difficult to have a serious debate about is that one portion of the population keeps getting asked to moderate their positions on immigration (in all its facets) while there is little to no similar pressure on the opposing group. To put it another way: why should I move towards the center (from my "left" position) when I see the right continue to push immigration policy to the extremes?

This is nothing new. For example, in the 2006 World Cup, the Allianz Arena was called FIFA WM-Stadion München (among many other stadiums that year).

> A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive

It seems quite ironic, given the frequent complaints about the inability of Congress to either govern effectively or fix health insurance (for many and various definitions of "fix"), that the ACA was so divisive. At least it got passed! Yet given the opportunity twice (2017-2019, 2025-2027), a politically viable alternative hasn't been offered up by opponents of the ACA, let alone being able to fully repeal it.

I don't think it has to be about ethics at all. People might just be turned off by digital illustrations of food that could pass as creatures from a Ridley Scott film. I'm also a little surprised that this remains the aesthetic that AI continues to go with. With the top end being AI actresses giving major news outlet interviews, have basic free tier models not advanced beyond cosmic horror food?

It doesn't help when the US President not only openly encourages it but also officially forgives people perpetrating it on his behalf.

What should we expect when it's coming from the top?

What theft? Modern humans learned from the works of past humans, LLMs learned from the works of modern humans, other LLMs learned from those LLMs. Given that the methods by which Anthropic and OpenAI obtained training data remains a legal gray area, it's not so cut and dry to me that distillation is stealing. It's just a continuation of the long tradition of building knowledge on the knowledge of others.

It's a shame there isn't the kind of competition in the US when it comes to mobile phones as there is in China. Many HN users would likely never buy a Chinese OEM device, but if you look at the variety of devices offered by Chinese brands, they're trying all sorts of approaches. Kind of like their EV market. Meanwhile, your choices in the US are Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Google, and that's pretty much it. I wouldn't say there's a ton of innovation between them...kind of like the large US automakers.

> Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.

Interesting. By the same logic, shouldn't LEOs feel discouraged to wear balaclavas and other types of masks? For example, DHS officers in the US have been wearing masks with the excuse that it protects them from doxxing but if they're operating within the law, what do they have to fear? Transparency serves everyone.

> political promises and proposed solutions don’t work anyways

This is very effective for populist parties because in a way it keeps them from being held accountable by their own voters. When I hear interviews with Trump voters being faced with evidence of how Trump hasn't kept one campaign promise or another, it's exactly the sentiment above: politicians never keep their promises anyways and Trump is no different but we like him so we'll stick with him.

> This is more about holding government officials individually accountable.

The state can also file criminal charges against the officials, although given that the Flint water crisis didn't result in any criminal convictions despite the evidence, I'm not holding my breath. Not to mention that the state could choose _not_ to file charges. In which case, what avenue for justice is left? Financial compensation is only part of it.

I guess satire doesn't come across in a thread where it fits in too well. My point was threefold:

1. The definition of American is not as black and white as people would like to think, so who is included and not included in "we Americans" is pretty nebulous. As a recent example, the debate over birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment.

2. Who should suffer the consequences of taking advantage of the H1B program? The workers hired under it? The business owners who hired them? The policy makers? If companies were truly 'scamming' the government as the parent comment said, it sounds like the owners of those companies should be punished, perhaps to a degree commensurate with the other anecdotes in this thread of lives being upended and people separated. As the parent comment said: "Sorry...but not sorry"

3. "Immigrants are taking jobs from Americans" is a refrain almost as old as this country is but is also not as clear cut as some users here seem to think. Not to mention that it's a very convenient political tool often used to redirect the anger of the poor or marginalized towards immigrants instead of the business owners and those with power who flaunted the law but will not be held to account. I guess "companies who hire illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans" just doesn't roll off the tongue in the same way.

> we Americans

We can also take a more critical look at the definition of what being American is. The 20th century, especially pre-1920, was rife with illegal immigration. Why should the descendants of those who skipped the line, who didn't come in "the right way", be able to now call themselves American and reap the unearned benefits of citizenship? They've taken and continue to take jobs from Americans who need them.

> Most of us are much closer to living in a porta potty than we’d like to think

Because of women and no-fault divorce? Didn't expect to see that conclusion in the comments. Maybe if we make it illegal it might slightly lower rates of homelessness, but let's see what it does to domestic violence, suicide, and spousal homicide statistics.