Their bot crawling numbers seem to disagree.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/09/22/americans...

I'm tired, boss.

What is the reasoning for this? Do AI companies want this?

> This is a problem because “SI” is also a classification marking.

They can just make up another name to redefine this classification which people are already used to. How about SIBISI? This follows the transformation they instituted a'la kilobyte -> kibibyte.

> This is a problem because “SI” is also a classification marking

Good thing the US uses the imperial system one less source of confusion /s

Can’t make money off of Slovenian domains without the rebrand. That’s obviously going to take precedence for the king.

I get the sarcastic intent in your comment; but it's more useful to focus on what Trump does than the things he says.

One of his strategies is to say unbelievable things like he's gonna revoke Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship or something weird like "superior intelligence", and the news will cover that instead of whichever agencies he's getting or how much he appears in the Epstein files.

I think you can say the same about how it is viewed domestically, as well.

Perhaps the right wing always thought that the government was the personal weapon of the sitting president, and that is why they are so comfortable with actually making it so, but the left wing has predominantly seen it as an enormous bureaucracy governed by policy and laws that only changed relatively slowly, and not at the whim of an individual.

Now when I see data and the source is the federal government, my reaction is "this is probably fake, or at least biased heavily." Makes me a little sad to have that reaction, e.g. I used to like going to the NIH web site to find information, but now I assume it has been curated to meet an ideological narrative.

I also do not have a lot of confidence that this situation will be a one-off aberration and the democrats will bring sanity back and implement better safeguards against the next demagogue. On the contrary, I think it is very plausible they will see this as an opportunity they had not dreamed of before.

SOC2, a standard governed by the a CPA certification body, costs billions of dollars a year to collectively implement and doesn't meaningfully improve security. FDA auditors trying to regulate software development for clinical trial data capture makes clinical trial software cost ~30% more AND makes it lower quality. There are costs on both sides of the continuum. The costs for bad regulators are just diffuse.

The AI discourse is full of cases where companies and their employees respect ethical boundaries at a cost to their bottom line. There was a famous incident, Project Glasswing, where Anthropic announced that they needed to do a large, collaborative cybersecurity project before they could ethically sell their newest model.

Of course, this story also points towards how people sometimes get confused. Most opportunities companies have to be unethical are complex, so if you're not already inclined to trust a company, it's easy to come up with reasons to distrust any claims of ethical behavior they make. Maybe they didn't want to do the unethical behavior in the first place, maybe they've made up self-serving ethical standards, maybe they're just being performatively ethical as a marketing strategy and they'll misbehave when nobody's looking.

Such commentary tends to go viral, because it's easy to propose and impossible to refute in a short comment or video.

Well you see, you just frame your ethics that anything done in service to the bottom line is inherently good. Easy as, anyone complaining about rapacious behavior or a decrease in their quality of life is the real evil (tm)

The teapot dome wasn't the president making policy decisions specifically to enrich himself. The man involved conducted his illicit affairs in secret, and went to prison for it.

The blatant nature of it now and complete complicity of large swaths of the government in the corruption are a level that has never been seen before. The Teapot Dome scandal involved the equivalent of tens of millions of present day dollars. The actions of the president alone now are what would have been considered dozens of individual career-ending scandals only a couple generations ago.

Teapot Dome had an investigative Congress who actually did their job. Plus Fall went to prison. Neither of this is going to happen today.

Don’t need to. Already knew of it. You may want to look into it if you think it’s comparable to this admin.

I spent three months in another country where I didn’t apeak the language very well. Hard not to see life’s brutal realities from that position

The US president sells early access to his official tweets at $100k per month. Things have definitely gotten worse even if they were shit to begin with.

Well a lot of this is simply published. Like, from reading a bill, agency rules, memos, whatever. Most of it is not hidden, except by...boredom? Like you had to be interested for whatever reason to go looking for it. Or embedded somehow in one of the institutions where you can see what the people at the bottom of the institution can see, without wanting to make a career out of it. Since if you decide that, then there's no incentive to notice.

I agree. Yes.

Btw I've already accepted my role as an assister. Haters come at me. See you on the other side!

I've long accepted that people by-on-large cannot be helped, western society has knowledge and understanding in abundance and yet... they lack self-control and self-respect. They need someone to instill it in them.

Peter Thiel's recent remarks on being evil is better than being bad captures this reality of life quite well.

Ah, well if you take the view that congress cannot delegate these powers, then there can be no executive anti-trust office, so this whole thing is moot.

However, this isn't the mainstream view -- but a radical departure of several hundred years of mixed-power agencies. See, eg., archetypally, The Fed. A wide variety of federal agencies are mixed powers, esp. regulation of businesses by the executive which is a legislative (administrators make rules) and judicial power (administrators decide if they apply). This is uncontroversial, I know of no view on this which denies this claim.

The "non-delegation" principle is about how far congress can enable other branches of government to exercise delimited forms of executive,judicial,legislative power. The "none" view is an extreme minority. No one things congress can hand the president the power to legislate. Most people think congress can create a framework in which certain details (eg., food/drug laws) can be created by agencies. That's the basis of the entire modern state, in any case.

There is nothing in my comment which can be "a lie", because its offering a theory of government which the original commenter lacked. Its not clear what theory of government is supposed to enable an executive anti-trust office with the power to intervene without a court, that isnt subject to presidential oversight.

People down-voting because they disagree with the theory of government offered is just as confused. The point of HN is to reply to something you disagree with, if offered in good faith, not to down-vote it. However I dont think down-voters had rival theories of government, I think they just resented a hate-thread being side-tracked into an honest discussion.

Sigh.

> Name one other multi-ton object that you can move through public spaces at high velocities without the law considering it inherently grossly negligent.

That is not the point I replied to.

This is a different point, namely, "Using a car on public roads is, by itself, grossly negligent".

> It is only illegal if there is a “dangerous probability” that the firm in question will be able to recoup its losses after eliminating its competitors by taking away all their demand and then jacking up prices when they’re the only game in town.

Aren't the competitors in this instance the workers?

> So it’s hard to argue that they’re going to drive everyone else out of the market with their pricing.

Eh, their AI is going to put millions of people out of a job ...

That percentage is speculative for now, we don’t actually know their margin. What we know is that Anthropic said publicly they have 80% gross margin IFF they use their own adjusted EBIDTA metric, which ignores revenue sharing, training costs, and stock based compensation

> Their margins are 90-95%.

Where did you read that? Linky?