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

Over here we spell it "uze", so I think there's still some ambiguity.

I encourage HN readers to read your username before replying to this comment. And also to consider why self-identifying capitalists like yourself might want a large cheap labor pool of people who can be deported if they complain about their working conditions.

For what it’s worth, I think it should be very easy to become an American citizen. I think these companies benefit from that not being the case. They’d call ICE on native-born citizens for trying to unionize if they could.


The an_cap position on immigration is open borders which is the opposite of "people who can be deported if they complain about their working conditions". Feel free to check the comment history.

Take it up with your fellow “caps” then, they’re the ones that support expanding this category of workers that have fewer political rights. The labor unions clearly only about immigration issues insofar as it relates to trying to weaken labor laws.

Can you point me to a capitalist who wants to expand the category of workers without the right to switch jobs?

Sure, anyone who tries to get you to sign one of these: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627682297/regulators-investig...

Nice motte and bailey there between "people who can be deported if they complain about their working conditions" and non-compete clauses.

You were the one who changed subject to be about “switching jobs”, presumably because that issue has less to do why companies want to hire non-citizens in the US. Up until that point we were talking about employees advocating for rights at their current jobs, which is the main thing undocumented workers or people on work visas have to worry about. You were clearly trying to go for the “just change jobs if you don’t like your employer” thing, which is why you changed the subject (and then accused me of doing that, for some weird reason).

Anyway, two for the price of one, since you’re demanding it: https://www.adhrb.org/2025/02/discrimination-against-migrant...


It’s all fun and games until you have to be like “blastoise deleted our database backups”


Well if they used coq, maybe it would not have happened!


Or maybe it's like someone saying homecooked meals and professional chefs are outdated because McDonalds exists. Homecooked meals are cheaper and healthier, and professional chefs still make better food. I don't think McDonalds is about to disappear, but I'm pretty sure those other categories aren't about to become obsolete any time soon.


> But what is a hobbyist surgeon?

Serial killer


Escape from New York is the good one (in my opinion anyway)


I like the cover of the book Crafting Interpreters: https://craftinginterpreters.com/image/header.png

It's basically a flowchart showing all of the different things that we mean when we say compiler/interpreter/transpiler, and which bits they have in common.

Funny, but it has two paths for transpiler - the kind that parses and outputs source from an AST, and the asm.js kind, that actually just uses a high-level language as an assembly-ish target.


If Google cured cancer tomorrow, there's someone that would be complaining about it and adding "cancer" to the "killed by Google" list. I would be very surprised if smaller browser vendors were happy about having to maintain ancient XSLT code, and I doubt new vendors were planning on ever adding support. Good riddance.


Smaller browser vendors already pick and choose the features they support. Which companies do you have in mind that are cheering for this initiative?


The post specifically calls out Apple and Mozilla as wanting to get rid of XSLT support, but just insinuates that this is because Google is paying them off. Obviously I think Google's monopoly position and backroom dealings are bad, but I also think that's completely unrelated, and that the more likely explanation for the other mainstream vendors wanting to get rid of XSLT is that it's a feature virtually no one uses and is likely a maintenance burden for the other non-Chromium browsers.

> Smaller browser vendors already pick and choose the features they support.

If there weren't a gazillion features to support, maybe there would be more browsers. I think criticizing Google and other vendors for _adding_ tons of bloat would be a better use of time.


> smaller browser vendors

Such as???


Mozilla.


> There’s a much smaller network of people with relationships to Eastern European or other companies.

Unlike eastern Europe, India is geopolitically in a pretty good spot right now, having decent relations with most developed countries, and not engaged in any major wars with its neighbors. The last company I worked for outsourced a lot of work to Russia. At a certain time in 2022 they suddenly had to shift a lot of that work to... India!


Yup, India is geopolitically right in the middle - and enjoying it.


Absolutely. They are in the middle both physically and logically. Notice Trump’s big crackdown barely made a dent - mess with India, and Jamie Dimon and his peers are on the phone immediately… finance depends on the outsourcers onshore and offshore to function.

India’s long term positioning of neutrality and strategy with business, education and politics is bearing fruit.


This website is social media.


Technically true but I've found it to be less addictive than other text forums (like the R-site and Lemmy), let alone the algo-powered video-based abominations that normies are all hooked on.

I'm thinking that it comes down to one thing in particular: the absence of response notifications. There's only so much addiction you can get out of a page of text without so much as a bell icon.


This is true, it's also not devoid of addictiveness :)

But you know what I mean, right? The ones using intricate algorithms and tracking to keep you "engaged" and manipulate what you read and see


I know what you mean, but I think the issue is not social media, but rather big corporations being shitty. PepsiCo makes addictive beverages that cause people develop to diabetes and heart disease, but that doesn't mean beverages should be illegal. I think it would be better to regulate or ban the specifically harmful things, rather than a blanket ban on something that is actually useful. And like you alluded to, banning social media could easily lead to a general crackdown on freedom of expression, journalism, etc, now that it is the primary way people communicate with one another.

I'll also add that I'm not specifically opposed to banning minors from using social media. It would probably also be better if it was illegal for children to buy their own soda tbh.


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

Search: