Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | giantg2's commentslogin

What that spokesperson is saying isn't the whole truth. Departments can discipline or terminate people who dont meet their character clause, including being a scofflaw. They only apply it in whatever way they feel benefits them.

That’s my point, essentially, that they chose not to fire such a BS reason that doesn’t even suffice.

I see a lot of people pushing weed as being safer than alcohol. There's a huge difference in the available data for both of these, not to mention the risk gradient of each based on dose and frequency. There are more known risks with alcohol, but it's not an apples to apples comparison based on the data. The final verdict is that neither is a "safe" choice based on the data, even if the risks differ somewhat between them.

Alcohol is one of the more dangerous drugs on most scales, so it's kind of a low bar?

The drug to beat would be safer than nicotine probably.


"Alcohol is one of the more dangerous drugs on most scales"

Can you provide those scales?


Quitting an ethanol addiction cold turkey can often be deadly. There aren't very many other drugs that can do that.

I thought pretty much any barbituate, benzo, and some opioid based drugs would can also do that.


"Note that alcohol (despite being legal and used more often than the other drugs) is by far the most harmful; not only is it the most damaging to societies, it is also the fourth most dangerous for the user. Most of the drugs were rated significantly less harmful than alcohol, with most of the harm befalling the user."

Thanks! Yes, a legal drug that is more widespread and more studied has more aggregate impact. Another sentence in that link specifically calls out legal and cultural impacts on harms. This is also in the UK, so it's worth noting there could be differences with the US. This does not negate my statement and in some areas bolsters it (data discrepancy claims).


"If you wanted to, you could sign an affidavit that would ban you from the casino floor on the risk of a misdemeanor trespassing charge."

Let's help people by criminalizing them so they have a harder time getting a job and all that...


Voluntary precommitment measures like this need some kind of teeth to be effective. The point isn’t incarceration, it’s the ban from the casino. If they can return without consequences then it’s not really a ban.

It’s likely that they will be turned away rather than arrested, unless they try to force their way in or sneak in.

Remember, this is voluntary. It’s for people with a problem who want to cut themselves off because they can’t control themselves any other way.


The "misdemeanor trespassing" is understood by everyone - basically, you're choosing to be banned, and if you come back the cops will give you a nice little ride to the station and then let you go.

Similar things in the digital world would be the ability to lock your iCloud account so you couldn't download gambling apps, and if you want to be unlocked you have to send a notarized letter to Apple and wait and reply to a confirmation letter. This adds delay and makes it so you can choose "not to be tempted" in your right mind, and when you're desiring "the fix" you can't get it right away.


These affidavits aren't used to penalize the individual, they are used to protect the casinos from nuisance lawsuits when they escort the individual off the property. Basically, if you sue claiming assault, you are opening yourself up to a criminal charge. It's an effective deterrent.

A casino doesn't ever need to call the cops to deal with you, they have their own private force.


Some casinos have public law enforcement, depending on the state. They don't need an affidavit to trespass someone (likely at the summary offense level depending on state), especially since it's all recorded. You shouldn't be able to sue someone while committing a trespass due to the clean hands doctrine, depending on state.

Getting trespassed from an Indian Casino can technically be an international incident; it happens now and then - the sovereignty of tribal nations is a real thing, even if not what you might expect.

"I also would have thought in these days we’d use Bluetooth beacons to triangulate the shelf slot too."

Maybe wifi6 location based on the gun when setting the tag?


This is not surprising. Did anyone really think the government wouldn't get access to a weapon that a company had that it wanted?

You're misunderstanding.

The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this "weapon."


It's quite obvious they just wanted to punish Anthropic, all this supply chain risk is a joke.

Yes, but it's important that we point out their contradictions :)

I don't think they even wanted to punish them. This is more "art of the deal" BS from the chief idiot in charge where you make people think you're going to go to an extreme as a bargaining chip.

Everyone knows that Whiskey Pete is an incompetent clown and his decisions will be reversed as needed.

> The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this

Technically, the Pentagon did. I don’t know if that’s legally binding on the NSA.


I work for a completely unrelated fed agency, who doesn’t use Anthropic products, and we all received the email stating we couldn’t use them period.

Huh, does supply-chain risk mean SecDef can bar a company from all federal contracting?

I have no idea but this went out to all fed agencies from what I could tell looking at the subreddit for fed employees. I was surprised by the notice because my agency does not have a contract with them and obviously we can’t just use any LLM provider.

Correct. And this quickly expands out into most companies in the US as the federal government uses and buys a huge amount of software. A component that you make and sell to X, that is used in Y, which is bundled up in Z that had Anthropic used on it can't be used by the fed.gov.

TFA says the NSA is part of the DOD.

It is, but NSA reports to the director of national intelligence, not the defense secretary, so it’s unclear (to me at least) that SecDef’s opinion of Anthropic counts for anything here

I guess DOD is large enough they have multiple parallel cabinet level positions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency


It’s not as clear as that. The NSA director is also, traditionally, dual-hatted as the Commander of CYBERCOM and thus a flag officer reporting ultimately to the SecDef. The DNI is responsible for coordinating/funding national intelligence activities but ultimately a lot of day to day operational decision making tends to flow through the pentagon. They would definitely need to abide by DoD policy

> They would definitely need to abide by DoD policy

The policy in question is a statement by SecDef being reviewed by courts. I think it’s fair to ask whether DNI is actually constrained by that, or if it’s a judgement call.


This is not surprising. Did anyone really think the government wouldn't lie?


The government has thousands of leaders with competing priorities. Different parts of the government doing different things isnt lying.

All of those parts are lying

Normal military procurement is going to go through process and use the APIs that Anthropic gives them. The NSA just has to has to achieve the goal of getting the weights out of the target computer.

... as it has been designated as a supply chain risk.

You have causality backwards

USG signed a contract → USG wanted to coerce Anthropic into changing the terms post facto → USG decide to use supply chain risk designation to achieve this

We know this for a fact because they simultaneously floated using DPA or FASCSA to achieve their desired coercion.


Anthropic has been giving companies access to the model. I think people on here have fallen for it once again. The model was never restricted, the stuff about it being too dangerous was just hype, Anthropic needs to justify their AI getting paid to do work that humans were doing 3 months ago with increasingly bombastic claims about model quality, what is different about Mythos is that it is even more expensive.

$100+ oil should be the least of your cost fears, especially given that the $100/barrel panic threshold from 5-10 years ago should be more like $150-200 today due to inflation over that time. Trade issues (China restricting exports, etc), currency devaluation, national debt, and macro effects of shifting demographics are setting a pretty stark stage.

PoE Reolinks with Zoneminder on a atom based mini PC. Add an external SSD for more storage if needed. Since you mentioned wifi then you could go with the wifi Reolink. Peer to peer might be more a a bespoke design. Closest commercial thing that comes to mind is cuddleback cuddlelink system.

Probably because all the training material of humans drawing hands are garbage haha.

I cant wait to see some smaller sizes. I would love to run some sort of coding centric agent on a local TPU or GPU instead of having to pay, even if it's slower.

This is how greed works. The players want as much money as they can get. The owners want to charge as much as they can for everything while paying the least possible amount. The networks that buy the broadcasting and other rights want to most they can charge for them.

Sports have gotten way out of hand, even without the betting aspect. People criticize gambling, porn, and other less desirable forms of entertainment while giving (commercialized) sports a free pass. It's not that different when you really get into it at this point.


>This is how greed works. The players want as much money as they can get. The owners want to charge as much as they can for everything while paying the least possible amount. The networks that buy the broadcasting and other rights want to most they can charge for them.

And the buyer wants to pay as little as they possibly can. That's not greed. That's called a market and it's functioning as it should.


There is only a market if there is a commodity.

La Liga is not a commodity as I can not equally make a La Liga.

This is the basis for antitrust regulations.

So no, there is not market. And as such there is no markets that functions as it should.


Absolutely incorrect. A market is just any structure, place, or mechanism that allows buyers and sellers to exchange goods, services, information, or assets. There can be one seller and many buyers, one buyer and many sellers, or anything in between.

If I go to your stall and coercively take a product you want 1000 tokens for, but only leave 10 tokens. Then it is still a market? It certainly fits the definition you present.

Inwould argue that price discovery is a bit part of a market. Again, these things are already codified. Eg. Wash trades, insider trading, etc.


If it were a true market, the price would be much lower because it wouldn't be a monopoly.

A market is not defined by how many sellers there are.

If you want the market to "function as it should", then yes, the number of sellers plays a big role in a properly functioning market. Thats why we have regulations in additional to the invisible hand.

Markets don't make sense for non-fungible products.

The ones who pirate the sports broadcasts are in the right. Spectator sports are literally brainwashing: they hook into vestigial tribal instincts, reinforce them, and channel them for political goals - such as norm-setting, or extrajudicial violence.

Anyone who genuinely likes kickball because they derive exquisite pleasure from watching balls being kicked, can go watch it live. But no, it just has to reach right into people's living rooms, at the cost of disrupting productive activity. Imagine if people paid such enthusiastic attention to things that were not about "winning" and "losing" some completely imaginary competition. Imagine how much better their lives would've been!


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

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

Search: