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

The CCPA clearly violates the 1st Amendment. If you're out in public, then people are allowed to see you, to remember it, to communicate that it happened, etc.

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the entire text of the first amendment. Congress did not make the CCPA. The first amendment is irrelevant. Technically the first amendment also does not prevent Congress from saying you're not allowed to remember or see things, either, though likely there's other laws about this and/or an assumption that Congress will not make laws against thought crime and reality.


Not exactly. One can be charged with stalking, even though the offender only went to places in public that the victim also went to. If combined with a pattern of behavior that, in aggregate, infringes upon the rights of the target, it can become a crime.

I think there’s difference between A) whether ships are traversing the straight, and B) whether the straight is open / closed / could be traversed.

It’s very well possible that the straight is safe, but the vessels are unnecessarily cautious.


Totally, and I've heard a lot of it comes down to insurance!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-08/shippers-...


I keep seeing the phrase “the harm” as if we’re all supposed to know exactly what that means. What is it?


Depression, anxiety, suicide, wasted time, irritability.


My attention span is greatly reduced for example. I have a much harder time reading physical books than I did as a kid. It should be the opposite as you age


California can do a lot to private companies, but the supremacy clause allows the federal government to do what it wants. If a business wants to engage in these illegal-in-California practices, they could partner with the federal government.

Edit: Now that I’m doing the research a partnership isn’t even needed, just a contract. Which makes sense, the feds cannot hire a private individual to do what would be illegal for them to do themselves… conversely, a company who is contracted to do federal business also enjoys supremacy by virtue of acting for the feds.


This reminds me of how some famous artists would paint via their studios wherein assistants put most of the pant on the canvas, under the direction / modeled off an example, and with the signature / embellishments of the named artist.


If 14% of the PhDs employed by the U.S. Government was 10,109, then there were about 72,207 total. That's about 3.2% of the civilian government, compared to 2.1% in the public workforce (and 1.3% of population).

So, the government tends to employ PhDs at a substantially higher (~50%) rate than the public workforce.

Edit: Yeah, oops, people generally use public / private the other way around.


...and unfortunately it is letting them go at a substantially higher rate than the public workforce.


Anything is true if you define the terms contrary to their meaning.


So when you read "water bankruptcy", you assumed it meant a legal process where the world can apply to a court to have its water debt annulled and start again?


This really made me laugh, but at the same time "water bankruptcy" doesn't mean anything before this statement but bankruptcy did. The term was chosen to give the same kind of emotional reaction as bankruptcy


wait, is that why "humanity" redefines and reinterprets words and meanings all the time?


Good thing that isn't what happened with this sensible definition. What part of that definition do you object to?


I disagree with this idea that businesses should have to keep their customers secret. If I go to Wal-Mart, then I should be free to tell my neighbors about what products were on sale and also how the produce was old / left to spoil. I’m not sure why that should be different for the store.


Do you think Walmart should be handing your credit card numbers out? Genetic profiles of you? Is there any limit or do you think if you walk into a space whoever owns that space can get and do whatever they want with any information you might happen to have on you?

> I disagree with this idea that businesses should have to keep their customers secret

They don’t. They just have to ask the person whose personal data it is if they can.


There are plenty of places folks visit that they would rather not have out loud.


I don’t see how personal preference should control other people’s speech. When I put terrible Google reviews down for a shop… I’m sure they don’t want that said publicly either… but it’s not libel… what I’m saying is true. There isn’t generally value in concealing the truth.


Businesses =/= people and people are, or at least should be, entitled to more privacy. This reads like another variation of “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” but maybe I’m misunderstanding your point


For a family going without relatives, a couple decades may be an eternity. For a nation-state, a couple decades is the blink of an eye.


It’s easy for a small group to seize the benefits when productivity is centralized in the hands of a small group. If you diversify the ability to build boats, then you may not be rich, but you’ll have a boat.


The increase in wealth concentration mostly happened after ship-building (and other manufacturing) departed.


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: