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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_of_Fact,_the_Truth_o...

Ted Chiang (author of Arrival) wrote about this


correct, here's the statute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#:~:text=%283%...

> (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

>

> (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.


BLU is doing fantastic work


Betteridge's Law Considered Harmful

Headline Slams Betteridge's Law

Betteridge's Law: Here's What We Know

Sitcks Nix Betteridge's Law Pix


Ask HN: Is every headline just a Betteridge headline now?

We analyzed 10M articles and found most questions don't need answers

I built a classifier that tells you if a headline ends in a question mark for engagement

We replaced all headlines with statements and traffic disappeared


Falsehoods programmers believe about Betteridge's Law.


Betteridge's Law is dead, long live Betteridge's Law


I have a ViewSonic ultrawide like this, picked it up as a factory refurb from their eBay account. Makes it incredibly easy to switch between work and personal laptops (Mac and pc), as well as a gaming tower.


Yarn is usually the next best thing but there seems to be something off with the video in this case

https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e9d8176d-e936-4224-a1d1-f...


FWIW I use Firefox with uBlock Origin and Enhanced Tracking Protection, and use Chase's website almost weekly. No issues that I've noticed on MacOS or Windows


The ticket is for “two days of resources that you personally can use”, not “two days of resources that can be used by any number of ticket-holders.”

It’s like the “free as in beer” explanation, I can’t pull up to my local bar running a promotion and fill up a tanker truck. Maybe they’re being hostile to me, a would-be customer, for that, but it’s simply not what’s being offered up.


Only Congress can change the name of a federal department, so the Department of Defense is still properly called that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14347


Only Congress can declare war but here we are with the department of war bombing a foreign country and capturing and assassinating foreign leaders.


That policy changed a long time ago. The last declaration of war was June 4, 1942.

After Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of Presidents to conduct military action without Congressional approval, but it still allows military action for up to 60 days. Every President since then has used that power.

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


That 60 day limit was ignored so frequently in the past it might as well not exist.

Pretty much every attempt at stopping the president (from Clinton onwards) ends the same way: house votes on it, senate might agree with the slimmest of majority, it reaches the president's desk, president vetoes it, it goes back to the senate where it needs 2/3 majority to overthrow the veto, and it never gets that 2/3 majority.


Yep, it’s a case of are they willing to impeach the president over this. And the answer is likely no. Some of the America first lot might vote against on ‘How does this help America’ grounds but I don’t see them getting near the threshold.


What does impeachment even achieve anymore?


Same as it always has. The senate has to vote on whether to convict. And they always vote no.


Even your link doesn't say what you imply.

> It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

There was not at attack on the United States.


I don't know why we're getting mired in the details here. The administration certainly isn't. We all work for trump now. Lawyers, journalists, universities, tech companies, state, local and foreign governments. Anything trump or one of his designated people wants, you need to do. If you start sputtering about your agency or your rights or your sovereignty, then expect as much shit thrown at you as the trump organization can muster. That's it, there is no legal justification. There are no fine points to argue. Obey or be punished.


The point is that someone claimed the law was changed, and then linked to something that didn't support the claim.

Yes, Trump is ignoring the law, but you have to be aware that he is crossing the line rather than gas lighting that there wasn't a line at all.


So the president can wage war without the Congress, but it can't officially rename the department that supports these wars autocratically. That's interesting.


Iraq war was the last declared war. Afghanistan war was also declared.


Incorrect. The only times America has formally declared war were the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.

In the case of the Barbary Wars, Vietnam War, the Iraq War and War on Terror / Afghanistan War, etc... congress approved military engagement but DID NOT issue a formal Declaration of War.


You mean that they were special military operations? j/k

Interesting though, I never knew this.


However if you go to https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-defense and click in the link for the https://www.defense.gov/ you get redirected to https://www.war.gov/

So I think a bit of confusion on my part is justified.


'Power is the perception of power'


That part isn't sited. It is likely not true.


The EO itself agrees with this and says that the War title is secondary. It explicitly doesn’t truly rename the department.


The most common one I run into is with volumes, when the full path doesn't already exist. Docker will just make the path, Podman throws an error. It's been called a "bug" in docker but the fact is everyone just expects the paths to be created. I want it to just work, not make everyone in the industry redo their dockerfiles to be "correct."

https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/6234

It looks like there was some work done to resolve this in 2023 and 2024 but I know this was still happening for me in mid 2025. Podman is technically correct here but functionally broken in a way that keeps pushing me away because I don't have time to deal with that :(


Running a docker container having side effects on the host seems bad. You've just convinced me a little bit I want podman, and not docker.


Not me, docker is the standard, works great for me, if it didn't, I'd look at alternatives.


Podman also works great but one has to stop trying to use it as if it were docker.


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

Search: