smithoc

It's too bad that no immigrants work in construction to build more housing. If we could import lower cost laborers to build houses, that would greatly improve the housing affordability problem, but sadly, every time I go past a construction site, all I see are white guys whose great-great-great grandparents came over on the Mayflower.

> is there any country an immigrant can move to, and better their lives as well as the locals' life/economy?

The United States.

> It seems the world is turning hostile to immigration in general - or maybe it is just the impression I get from the media?

The world is turning hostile to immigration because the media (and social media sites) highlight and repeat the bad anecdotes, while barely mentioning the actual data showing positive outcomes.

By that argument, why should any musician get anything? They're not paying royalties to the musicians who they listened to in the past and whose songs they trained on while they learned to play.

An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.

Should everyone who used an 808 or autotune or amplifier distortion have their music be demonetized? Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?

This is the first time I have seen refusing to pay bribes framed as a moral failing and character flaw.

Perhaps it's not that he "didn't understand he was supposed to bribe" but rather that he thought that system was bad and antiquated and that he was taking a principled stand for the modern (of the time) technology industry to move away from those historical norms.

It didn't work, but he's not bad for trying.

Robots

You've picked a handful of consumer goods which have become cheaper due to technology and used them to construct a narrative entirely opposite of reality.

It would be more accurate to say the baby boomers could "work as a grunt and get what their children only dreampt of"

Single-income households, lifelong employment at the same company, people buying houses at 23 and having kids at 25, pensions, affordable health insurance, inexpensive college, people working their way up from the mail room to the C-suite. All taken for granted as typical, middle-America norms a few decades ago, but utterly unrecognizable to Millenials and Gen-Z.

Yes, people today have big TVs and air fryers. And they can use them to self-medicate briefly against the anxiety of rent that takes 40% of their post-tax income, student loans they'll be paying for the next decade and the knowledge that the whims of executives they've never met could make them lose their job tomorrow and be faced with a loss of healthcare and housing in short order.

Most people would happily downgrade their TV and drive a lower horsepower car in exchange for stable employment, no debts, no retirement worries and a spouse who doesn't have to work a corporate job.

The problem is on a thread where there is 1 AI post, people will identify 10 posts as being AI.

People latch onto the word "delve" or an em-dash or the idiom of "it's not X it's Y" as being proof that something was written by AI, without ever considering that AI is largely just writing in the style of how internet commenters write since that's a lot of the training data.

Now we've got students re-writing their homework to avoid looking like AI and commenters self-censoring against words and phrases that trigger AI suspicion.

I'm deeply skeptical that people can correctly identify human-written vs latest AI model written HN comments with sufficient accuracy.

> No they don't know and if they did I would get fired obviously

And yet, above, you're still asking where the fraud is. You clearly know you're violating the terms of your employment agreement. That's the fraud. It's not complex.

OP was presumably not asking literally because they thought this was the best way to find out, they were doing so rhetorically to point out that Andrew Tate is not a person of any real significance or mainstream notoriety, who has garnered a weird amount of attention from a tiny set of terminally online people.

Basically, talking about him should be beneath the New Yorker, and the choice to publish about him drags a weird little pocket of the deep internet into the mainstream, in a way that makes us all worse off.

> Using AI, I've been able to land several interviews and work 3 jobs remotely currently without much effort

Working 3 jobs is almost certainly defrauding the employers, your employment agreement likely forbids this due to IP ownership issues and expectations that you're, ya know, working for them when they're paying you and not secretly collecting a paycheck while working for a different company during the time they're paying you to work for them?

Also, unclear if you're also fraudulently claiming experience you don't have by having AI write a resume tailored to the job posting rather than representing what you've actually done.

If your 3 jobs are actually part-time jobs, with clearly delineated and compartmentalized time and work tracking and the employers are aware and the contracts allow that, then fine. But your description definitely reads like someone bragging that they're hacking the system to get away with tricking multiple employers into thinking you're working full time for them.

Does it matter if it was?

It's 2026. LLMs are integrated into text editors the same way as spell checkers and grammar checkers. Even if people write things themselves, they likely are using LLMs to review and edit.

This isn't a bot pretending to be a human, this is an official announcement from a company. It's going to be written by a committee and edited by legal and PR and marketing anyway. Who cares if one (or several) of those steps used an LLM.

So you've used AI to do fraud and you're confused why people are opposed to this?

You're the reason companies are pushing return to office and putting candidates through gauntlets of interviews and homework - because otherwise they end up hiring someone who lied on their resume and is trying to collect 3 salaries until they get caught and fired.

The HN title matches the submitted article title, however, it should really say "racial diversity".

If removing the legacy preference results in a working-class white kid from the Midwest getting admitted instead of a upper-class white kid from Connecticut, that's still an increase in diversity of socioeconomic class, regional background, ethnolinguistic subculture, and more.