Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more Digory's comments login

The oration struck me as a little self-serving -- especially since the heir was weak. You'd like the commoners to feel good about the family, and maybe this did the trick.

But, the prison releases do seem to indicate he was in a forgiving mood; I imagine release of the brother couldn't be accomplished without some formal process. "The one jailed for treason? I'd like to see that order in writing."


Both come with Google Fi, the cell service.

Which has probably kept me from comparison price shopping cell service quite so hard.


That sounded like an amazing deal, but it's a promotion. Google Fi offers 1 free year of YouTube Premium if you have an Unlimited Plus plan for a year.


Exactly this. And if you have a Google Fi family plan it's per user.


I wish that were true for all customers. I've had Fi forever and the only thing I get are good deals on phones every so often.


Surprised I had to scroll this far down to find this. Options? Employment contracts? The SEC database is golden.

If you're not doing well enough to pay the lawyer for custom advice, use the example of people who paid to get it right for them.


I had the same feeling at the end. Of all the ways to spend the 20th century, being tied to US Steel wasn’t exactly a bad ride.

“Arguably, the Harvard system was a disappointment every day since 1636…”


Yes, this seems like a constitutional test. If you need this pardon to stand up, you'd better get the certificate from the WH pardon lawyer with your name on it.


Jimmy Carter did the same almost half a century ago by granting a blanket pardon to Vietnam war draft dodgers, and all of them have lived to a ripe old age without being taken to court to test the pardon.


As the proclamation says, the District of Columbia's local laws are technically federal laws. So it wipes out the convictions of a good number of people in one of our major cities.

I can't quite tell if this applies to military convictions. That would be the other area where the Federal government takes the time to prosecute something as minor as mere possession or use.

Another interesting question: does this actually pardon, or is it more like an open call for applications? It looks to me like you'd want to get that pardon certificate from the WH Pardon lawyer well before the next election.


> the District of Columbia's local laws are technically federal laws.

Cannabis has been legal in DC for 8 years. See Initiative 71.


As a fake lawyer, I would also love to know if this applies to military convictions.

What other places outside of DC does federal law apply to?

(without the need for it to be interstate or some other such clause that is normally required for federal statutes to apply)

Can the president pardon crimes on reservations?


I am also a fake lawyer.

Even in legal states, you can get a simple possession charge on federal land [0].

[0] https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/olympic/news-events/?cid=STEL...


Thank you. I think this rule applies inside federal buildings on state land too?


It depends on the statutory scheme for the acquisition of the federal land. In some cases the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, in some cases concurrent, and in some it only has a proprietary interest (i.e., the federal government is the landowner but the state has legal jurisdiction).


I'm curious if there are standard rules for post offices.


The Federal government took exclusive jurisdiction over post offices in the 1940s.


> What other places outside of DC does federal law apply to?

In theory, anything owned by the federal government is under federal law. This means federal court houses, branches of the fed, federal waters (anything above 3 geographical miles from shore), national parks, etc. Sometimes law enforcement is delegated to state local authorities though.


It does not apply to military convictions. Very frustrating.


> As the proclamation says, the District of Columbia's local laws are technically federal laws. So it wipes out the convictions of a good number of people in one of our major cities.

According to the report that preceded this action, more than 75% of all federal possession convictions were prosecuted in Arizona. Apparently it was just a rogue jurisdiction.

There are a number of totally bonkers details scattered around this report. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...


> I can't quite tell if this applies to military convictions.

No, because it would still violate the UCMJ. The UCMJ would have to change.


No. The President has the power to pardon violations of the UCMJ. There is no statutory change that would have to be made.


Germany didn't sign the contract, and it hosts the court.

Universal Music didn't sign the contract, and it went to Germany's court.

In the US, the contract terms would normally bind the _parties to the contract._ Contracts are sometimes called "private law," as opposed to "public law." But in some circumstances and places, the government just declares the contract or provision legally void. Then, even the parties to the contract can't rely on it.


> If you like a product and want it to be available long term, you would want it to be a self sustaining business, not a cash bonfire.

He doesn’t want the product at the current price. It’s a bad value for him.

You’re requiring the consumer to want management’s goal. But product survival is not a buyer’s goal. The buyer has limited money, and wants his own profitability.


Agreed the article is more about probing the board’s weakness.

But the board seems to have a weak hand. It can decide to disappoint the for profit investors. But it doesn’t own Sam, or the vast majority of the workers, and maybe not much of the know how. And they can walk if the board disappoints them.

The board’s altruism might be great, but it lacks the legal tools to do what it wants, against organized labor backed by unlimited capital.


The board do own Chat-GPT though


That’s not only trivial to replace with enough funding for training, but ChatGPT is barely a 0.1 release. Everything after is where the big money is.


trivial to replace

And yet no one has been able to do that since gpt4 was released.


That's only because the key players have no reason to compete.

They don't want to run a developer/enterprise ChatGPT platform.

Google cares about Search, Apple about Siri, Meta about VR/Ads. But those three are interesting heavily in their own LLMs which at some point may better OpenAI.


It's not trivial given current supply bottlenecks, not to mention research expertise.


I don't feel like compute for pretraining the model was a huge constraint?

The supply bottlenecks have been around commercializing the ChatGPT product at scale.

But pretraining the underlying model I don't think was on the same order of magnitude, right?


The control of the supply si with Microsoft, who are likely falling on Sam’s side here.


First mover advantage and Microsoft integration is nothing to sneeze at.


For sure.

But if Altman has a new venture that takes first mover advantage on a whole different playing field MS could easily get left in the dust.


I'd like to hear more about the board's argument before deciding that this was "virtuous board vs greedy capitalist". The motivations for both sides is still unclear.


Seems unusual for a nonprofit not to have a written investigative report or performance review conducted by a law firm or auditor. Similar to what happened with Stanford's ousted president but more expedited if matters are more pressing.


Surely there are other cuts with less impact. I suspect many more users would rather they redirect the ample Private Foundation funds for "NYPL LIVE" stage events (December: "Lesbian Poetic Traditions") to staying open on Sundays.

But Library management wants to host cool friends AND generate angry voters.

I see this pattern often in government budget showdowns; the tiniest cuts produce outsized service impacts.


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

Search: