Note that the article only measures violations of child labor laws, i.e. there are (presumably many times more) children working without violating the laws. Why are people deliberately employing lousy workers? Why are business owners lobbying to allow these lousy workers to work more hours?
First: How do you know that every system is corruptible and exploitable?
And second: What if other systems are less corruptible and exploitable? How do you know whether all systems have the same potential for corruption and exploitation?
Capitalism is a system that explicitly rewards greed, and that gives the most power to the people with the most to gain from exploiting said power. Why is it unreasonable to believe that other systems are likely better on these fronts?
Excuse you? What I originally said was "I don't understand your comment". They posted a clarification, and the clarification still doesn't make sense. No, I haven't read the download numbers. How is that going "well akshually"?
No, it doesn't. If the claim is just that download numbers are not consistently trending upwards, they should have just said that. I would have no trouble understanding that. What they actually said is "Libreoffice didn't say the numbers were going up, they claimed a specific record." Well, so what? Nobody said Libreoffice said that! The OP said that, because if it's true, then it's not surprising that the latest stat (release or not) is the highest ever. Nobody in the thread so far has said anything that contradicts "the numbers were going up anyway, therefore the record might not be to do with the AI policy".
The numbers graph is spiky and I can imagine you could argue either way that they are generally trending up or not. But that's irrelevant!
This objection is completely meaningless unless the download numbers follow a consistent upwards trend. You are simplifying the new record to a boolean, but most people still find meaning in extraordinary events happening, even if they follow a general trend.
So I fail to see this discussion as anything but sophistry until anyone demonstrates that the download numbers are totally ordinary. It's typical HN contrarianism without any value, because it's enough to argue for the possibility of something, even when the data for checking it is easily accessible.
I think the confusion is that robrain somehow understood smokel's objection as being "all-time total downloads obviously increase over time, so this is meaningless", rather than what smokel actually said which was "the number of weekly downloads has simply been increasing over time". Which is why robrain quoted LibreOffice's "This is the highest number of downloads in the first week”, to counter the idea (which nobody suggested) that the record was just about all-time cumulative downloads going up.
That's then what tempfile was questioning how it contradicted smokel's claim (because it doesn't, just an imagined claim). Your points, that if the number of weekly downloads isn't actually consistently increasing then this could still be meaningful, are valid - but irrelevant to tempfile who was wasn't arguing that this is meaningless; you should argue that to smokel instead.
This whole discussion is about evidence. That's not proof and it is not certain, but it is evidence pointing into the direction that OpenAI might be doing something that they're strongly incentivized to do. What kind of "evidence" do you see as necessary?
The people on the left who are "enthusiastically pro illegal immigration" are a tiny minority of all leftists. The majority does think that illegal immigrants shouldn't be mistreated deliberately, which conservative media outlets condense into "enthusiastically pro illegal immigration".
I see all those topics brought up, both here (though usually flagged) and on the Fediverse.
Why wouldn't the tech companies, rich capitalists and current US government use these services to drum up support? I mean hell, why wouldn't they use the product they're building for this purpose? They have every incentive to.
The CDU has been trying to adopt more AfD positions and talking points, in the hopes of getting their votes. Meanwhile this keeps only strengthening the AfD, but the CDU would rather see the fascists in power than govern with anyone left of center.
I am unfamiliar with the details of German politics but if what you say is true, I am not surprised at all. I do not think that one can "win" against those parties by using their methods or adopting their positions. Because they are genuine at it. While the others would only fake it.
If the voters have a choice between a fake populist and a genuine populist, they would, in my opinion, naturally pick the genuine one.
I think that one of the reasons is that the "fakeness" is not very appealing to anyone. So they prefer the "real deal".
The research I've seen points to a different, but closely related causal chain - when the mainstream party adopts positions by the extreme party, some view it as a confirmation that the extreme party was right on this point, and might be right on others.
I'd like to note the highly biased nature of this comment.
> There was a lot of hope when the current German government was elected. The current chancellor did his campaign saying the leftist-green ideological politics would be over and he is going to drastically reduce the government spending and cut bureaucracy and lift up the economy. People believed him and majority voted for a center right government.
The current chancellor is from the CDU, the same party that led the government 16 out of the last 20 years (and the majority of Germany's existence), and they offered nothing but populist non-solutions. Now they're implementing them, and it turns out they're just pushing Germany deeper into the hole the CDU dug for us.
> However, as soon as he came to power, he broke the promise of fiscal discipline and cutting spending and the first thing he did was passed a bill to burrow more than half a trillion Euros under the votes of old parliament even changing the constitution.
This is a non-argument, since it's just pointing at a Euro amount without arguing why it's not fiscally responsible or how it doesn't align with their campaign promises. I actually agree that it's fiscally irresponsible, but it definitely aligns with Merz's campaign promises. When you vote for a party that promises both fiscal responsibility AND to funnel lots of money to the rich, you're gonna break one of them no matter what - but that's on the voters for believing in both.
> Also because of the firewall they have imposed to AfD, for him the only coalition partner was SPD( which is more of a left leaning party) and they formed a government and since then it has been internal conflicts to pass the important legislations to get the country back on track.
For the record, the SPD lost >80% of their voters because they have been the CDU's little lapdog for more than a decade, and are actively pushing against non-centrist policies. The "important legislations to get the country back on track" are things like "allowing employers to demand 8 additional hours of work each week" or "allowing employers to force employees to get a sick note on the first day AND no longer paying for single sick days, WHILE ALSO banning sick notes over video appointments AND no longer reimbursing physicians for 'open hours', so if you can't get that sick note, sucks to be you".
In comparison, the party FDP (who literally let the richest capitalists directly participate in their decisions) actually blocked a bunch of agreed-upon things in the only recent left-of-center government. After the coalition fell apart, investigative journalism revealed that they literally planned on entering the government with the intention of blocking as much as possible before blowing up the coalition.
> After the coalition fell apart, investigative journalism revealed that they literally planned on entering the government with the intention of blocking as much as possible before blowing up the coalition.
Can you share the link or source for this? This is the first time I’m hearing this
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/22/child-labor-...
Note that the article only measures violations of child labor laws, i.e. there are (presumably many times more) children working without violating the laws. Why are people deliberately employing lousy workers? Why are business owners lobbying to allow these lousy workers to work more hours?
reply