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

Heroin seems to fit their definition as well.


There is no gray area here.

San Francisco can make murder legal and refuse to arrest people for it. State and federal law enforcement will just step in.

The DEA still busts dispensaries and grow operations in California for example, it just isn't newsworthy.


It's a bit more complicated than that. When the state makes something legal and refuses to prosecute, it can do so because it possesses sufficient sovereignty for that under the commandeering doctrine. But the relationship between the state and its municipalities is not equivalent - the state has all the sovereignty while the municipalities only have such power that the state delegates to them, and that power can always be withdrawn (in the most extreme case, by de-chartering). Thus, the state can actually force San Francisco to remove this law, and compel its law enforcement agencies to enforce state law. It just chooses to not do so.


Sounds like both should be illegal then?


No, it means both should be legal and the behavior is what should be prosecuted, not the substance taken.


> An English teacher in high school witnessed her friend jump to her death from a balcony after taking LSD. The woman said she felt light as a bird, took off running, hopped up a chair and dove over the railing to the pavement 20 feet below. She broke her neck.

What behavior could be prosecuted here except for giving someone LSD without supervision?


The trope of people jumping out of windows on LSD is entirely Art Linkletter's fault for not being able to accept his daughter's suicide, but instead blaming in on the fact that she had mentioned that she had done LSD before.

Since, if you're on LSD (or pretending to be) and acting out, the first thing you're expected to do is talk about how you can fly and threatening to jump out of the window. It's silly. No part of LSD makes upper-floor windows magnetic, and the trope has proved longer lasting than the memory of Art or Diane Linkletter.

edit: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-scarlet-linkletter/

> Diane’s death helped spread a widespread urban legend that lives on to this day, although it was around well before her fatal plunge. According to a popular story that warns young people about the dangers of drug use, “some girl” jumps from a window while on an acid trip because the drug fools her into thinking she can fly. The claims immediately made after Diane’s death that she had been on LSD, coupled with her method of suicide, seemed to some to fit this existing cautionary tale, and afterwards her demise was pointed to as an example of this legend’s coming true.


> No part of LSD makes upper-floor windows magnetic

Salvinorin-a on the other hand has (slightly?) more potential for this scenario. Users can experience what they call “salvia gravity,” a sensation of being pulled in some particular direction, which they follow with their body. I saw someone curl into and begin to lean against a 2nd-floor window screen. His friends kept him safe for the ~7 minutes the trip lasted. If he had been alone though, he could have fallen out.

I don’t know how common that effect is, and it’s quite different from the folklore of people thinking they can fly on acid. This is just a PSA for the few people who are interested in trying that particular drug.


Who do we prosecute when a motorcyclist crashes into a tree at 120 mph?


We should prosecute the US institute of traffic engineers since it’s literally in their model policy that streets must be designed so you can go fast enough to kill yourself, and the correct number of pedestrian deaths before considering any mitigations is significantly more than none.


So if you go faster than kill-yourself speed a missile gets fired and evaporates you? Or how are you supposed to make a street that doesn't allow you to go fast enough to kill yourself?



That seems like an odd argument for a substance that disconnects you from your actions.


> SpaceX could absolutely launch a mars mission with their existing rocket platforms and launch infrastructure.

Which highlights the major difference between public and private sector exploration. SpaceX killing everyone on their first attempt is a tragedy and they quickly move on, NASA doing it is a 10 year halt to any further work until a full public investigation takes place.


> SpaceX killing everyone on their first attempt is a tragedy and they quickly move on

I think you're confusing Virgin Galactic with SpaceX here.


If it wasn't already, you aren't paying attention.

Cloudflare is quite literally the largest bulletproof hosting provider for bad actors on the internet, and unless you know someone at the company personally takedowns are like pulling teeth.


Not to mention that CFs policy is to forward takedown requests, unredacted, to the site you're trying to takedown. CF users like KiwiFarms have been weaponizing this policy for years by publishing their takedown requests, knowing their userbase will seek retribution against whoever sent them.


Huh? Are you suggesting sites shouldn't have access to takedown requests? That is unreasonable.


I'm suggesting there should be a path to complain to Cloudflare without the site being put into the loop, for cases like this where the site is not acting in good faith.


There is. Twitter mobs seem very effective these days.

The problem is what they do is legal, beneficial (because we have a lot of bad people) but not without downsides (again, because it helps some (or the same) bad people).

Since there's no easy way to sort out people and content it's hard to fault them for not doing so.

If what they were doing were 100% bad then it would be politically straightforward to ban it. But we already ban those things.

So what's needed is better systems, models, rules, processes that help with one of the underlying problems (eg. we need to either reduce the number of bad people or we need to get better at sorting content), then it again becomes politically simple to pressure providers to actually do better.

(One of the possible things that could be improved is a better way to do incremental changes. Currently CF can drop clients once, so they are not going take this lightly. If there were other ways to signal to clients that they are doing something problematic that would incentivize CF to utilize that incremental tool more.)


>CF users like KiwiFarms have been weaponizing this policy for years

If your complaint is that the host should be the only one to see the full report then your point doesn't stand since Josh pays to have his own ASN so he can personally handle reports for it.

If your point is that only Cloudflare should have the name I don't think it counts as a valid DMCA takedown since it's not like you have a signed document from the copyright holder or someone on their behalf.


The comment is pretty obviously talking about working with them when it comes to vulnerabilities.

How they handle takedowns is important in its own way but completely unrelated.


> is it still not encouraged to run Windows there

You can get a Windows machine, but they are not trusted devices and you can't access a lot of stuff. (At least that was the case a few years ago when I left)


> I suggested to move a device of theirs already on that network, closer to the overhead projector

What you didn't know is that it wouldn't work.

There is also an expectation that you don't just randomly start changing things in shared conference rooms. If there is an issue, you open a GUTS ticket and someone comes and solves the problem. Chances are if you discovered a real issue, there are 90 other rooms with the same issue that also would be updated.


For the longest time Drive never actually enforced users quotas. This was recently "fixed" and they are getting things under control.

Quota enforcement was a blocker for official Drive linux support because it would have made the abuse issues even worse. (Not saying its going to happen now, but one blocker has been cleared)


Could you explain what you mean by this? Why would an official Linux client lead to more abuse compared to the current situation of several unofficial clients in common use.


Every email to legal@ has to be read by any legitimate site, thanks to GDPR/CCPA. Not that you'll get a response.


Could you give references for this?


How can this possibly be enforced? What if there’s no email service on that domain? What if the business has no email address at all?


Hardly, and especially no to the GDPR. As a US citizen operating my own US site, doing no business with the EU, I do not care nor am I required to comply with EU law that has no bearing on a US citizen like me.


> As a US citizen operating my own US site, doing no business with the EU, I do not care nor am I required to comply with EU law that has no bearing on a US citizen like me.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. Our expensive GDPR lawyers have made it clear there is still some amount of risk.

The example was of a German citizen booking American hotels for their vacation. Under the wording of the GDPR law, if their data was breached, the hotel could be held liable under a German court.

Now, the realisticness of this actually going to court or there being any meaningful penalty has not really been tested, but it's our corporate policy not to be the first ones to do so. So even for signup forms targeting Americans for American events, legal has asked us to specify to always collect country information (so we know what GDPR rules to process this person under) or include a dumb disclaimer that people from certain countries should not sign up.


I do not believe that is how the joke laws that are GDPR/CCPA operates.


Unrelated. Spikes in new unique onion addresses are tied to ransomware groups, who have their victims use Tor to negotiate payments.


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: