> It still boggles my mind that Trump was even allowed to run for president again
He was at least 35, a natural born citizen of the US, had residency for at least 14 years prior to his candidacy, only served a single term prior, and was never charged and convicted with insurrection.
Of course he was allowed, he met all the constitutional criteria to serve.
They did, it was a great piece of legislation. And you might note that they said that a state can't disqualify a candidate, not that they erred in a judgment that refutes your claim.
“A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits for-
mer President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential
nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,
from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme
Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado
secretary of state to exclude the former President from the
Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any
write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on sev-
eral grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress,
rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3
against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.”
At what point was Trump “charged and convicted” because that is what I wrote. Obviously it doesn’t matter what a “group of Colorado voters contends” or that “the Colorado supreme court agreed”, it didn't meet the limitations imposed by section 3 of the 14th, because they cant, only congress can using section 5.
> At what point was Trump “charged and convicted” because that is what I wrote.
You wrote other words too. I assume your assertion was that he was not legally excluded from the presidential ballot for insurrection. Colorado found otherwise.
> it doesn’t matter what a “group of Colorado voters contends” or that “the Colorado supreme court agreed”
Once again, "Colorado begs to differ". They found that he participated in an insurrection and, to be entirely honest, I trust them more than you.
Scotus isn't on your side here, they just said states can't disqualify federal candidates.
I don’t have a “side”. I said Trump was qualified to run for president because he satisfied all the qualification boxes—-if you dispute that, make your case. Colorado attempted to make their case and lost. He age qualifies, he citizenship qualifies, his residency qualifies, and he didn’t violate the 14th.
So I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Frankly, there doesn’t seem to be one beyond just arguing a failed point.
I think you mean "he hasn't been found to have violated the 14th", we all witnessed the insurrection. And even that would be an inaccurate statement on your part, he was found to have violated the 14th by Colorado. Scotus did not vacate this finding.
> This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office.
You keep trying to use Trump's ability to run for federal office as some backwards way to claim he was neither the participant in an insurrection nor found legally to have been one.
He was, you're absolutely right! You're welcome to claim the Colorado finding is meaningless because of the scotus decision, just don't use it to fabricate a different set of facts.
Care to explain how it had any actual bearing on Trumps ability to run for president? How about how it changes my point that he was qualified, ran, was elected, and still holds the office? He was on the Colorado ballot, he received over 1.377M votes from folks in Colorado. You keep pointing to it as meaningful and how it somehow disproves my point that he was qualified to run for the office (and won and now holds the office) but where was this case’s impact on the result?
Apparently whatever nuanced point you think you are making, reality seems to disagree with you.
> Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.
Sure, but those two things would tend to work against it becoming a pandemic— unless it managed those two things but also kept its host healthy enough for long enough before becoming lethal to adequately spread it.
I looked into this once, it depends on how splashy the death is. A virus that made people explode instantly into a fine mist of airborne virus particles could be perfectly adequate for a pandemic (although holding off until help arrives might work even better).
I think we can safely assume that OP was picking a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical example to make a point that it’s possible for something to be deadly and transmissible, although in nature Baculovirus in Caterpillars has a similar mechanism (encourages their host to eat a lot, then climb to the top of a plant so when it turns to ooze it infects others) or cordyceps although both of these aren’t as highly transmissible as they hypothetical explode virus.
But the Black Death mixed high contagion and high mortality as an actual example that shows they aren’t mutually exclusive.
What? That's your second strawman in two comments.
Nobody said you claimed they were harmless. People are taking issue with your assertion that biological agents can be either contagious or lethal (not both), and therefore you discount its risk. This implied tradeoff between contagiousness and lethality simply is not enforced by anything in nature.
The natural emergence of a pathogen that's both highly contagious and highly lethal would be a much rarer event than the natural emergence of one that's either contagious or lethal, but we're talking about engineered pathogens. There is no reason to think that pathogens cannot be deliberately created that are both of those things.
> without a very knowledgeable handler that knows exactly what they want and how to correct errant output...
For now, but I think the problem will become that we will soon start undercutting the bench and the rookie technologists, which in the future will eliminate the “very knowledgeable handlers” or make them exceedingly rare.
I am of the opinion that AI will improve and makes some great leaps for society and then gradually start to enshitify literally everything because we will no longer have people able to second guess the AI and keep it in check.
> "Impose" makes it sound like Anthropic is being hostile here.
Anthropic is not asking for their product to be used in line with their ethics, they are basically demanding it. I don’t necessarily think they are wrong but I don’t think we need to sugarcoat it either. It’s a demand and if it differs from what the DoW wants to use the tech for…of course its going to be in conflict. “Impose” is appropriate.
> Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving.
Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc…
> It's a total perversion of the fundamental idea of capitalism that governments are competing for companies and wealthy people. That's not how capitalist competition is supposed to work.
Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here? Of course regional governments are going to try and attract local investment.
> Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc…
So is your view is that a bunch of people much less wealthy than Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities is equivalent to Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities???
In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre.
And again, Page is not even involved much anymore in Google, which was founded in 1998. Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever, because he did something in the 20th century?
> Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here?
I'm appealing to economic theory, which posits the benefits of sellers competing with each other for consumers in a free market. It does not posit the benefits of governments competing with each other for sellers, and in fact that grossly distorts the market.
> So is your view is that a bunch of people much less wealthy than Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities is equivalent to Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities???
What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact.
> In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre
I never made this claim. Not sure why you are.
> Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever
I hope you are not suggesting that he is breaking some law here by choosing to relocate to a more favorable financial environment for him. People of all incomes make (legal) financial decisions every day for their own benefit. Of you feel the laws are in some way unfair, elect people who will change them.
> appealing to economic theory…
There are lots of economic theories (especially around capitalism). You are assuming laissez-faire somehow trumps others? Why?
> What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact.
Yes, he co-founded Google in 1998, nobody disputes that. But how is that relevant to his personal tax rate in 2026?
You're changing the subject, because we were talking about things Page is doing now, not what he did in the past. I was responding to this: "The Page Family operates a number of philanthropic initiatives, non-profits, and other companies outside of Alphabet."
> I never made this claim. Not sure why you are.
What are you arguing, exactly?
> I hope you are not suggesting that he is breaking some law here by choosing to relocate to a more favorable financial environment for him.
No. Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now.
> There are lots of economic theories (especially around capitalism). You are assuming laissez-faire somehow trumps others? Why?
I am not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. However, many people are proponents, and argue that it leads to the best outcome for society. My point is that nobody, except perhaps the billionaires themselves believes that governments competing for the presence of billionaires leads to the best outcome for society. To me it seems like the worst of all possible worlds.
> Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now.
I think people are too caught up in the relative amounts here and are missing the forest for the trees. I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. There is no doubt that he has significantly contributed to California’s economy both by his own efforts as an entrepreneur as well as his own participation in California’s economy. Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it. He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others, but thats just how this all works. What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay and what his perception of California’s tax burden is versus other states.
It’s the downstream opportunity loss that someone like him can create for California if he leaves and then decides take investment elsewhere. This is not about the future taxes that Larry Page the individual or family won’t pay in California. It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.
If you are California’s political leadership you better be concerned about why a Larry Page feels the need to leave and not have the “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out” attitude. The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.
I'm not so sure. That's why I was asking before for evidence.
> Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it.
In what sense is this different from any other California resident?
> He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others
That's a vast understatement.
> but thats just how this all works.
That's how it has worked. The wealth tax is trying to change it.
> What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay
How is that what matters? Yes, every person should pay what they're legally obligated to pay. I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the discussion, or how it distinguishes Larry Page from any other person.
> It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.
There's no evidence that Larry Page can or will create another Google now.
It's also worth noting that Page was just a relatively poor college student when he founded Google. It wasn't because of his wealth. Perhaps he'd have more incentive to found another Google if he were deprived of all his wealth again. On the other hand, perhaps he just had one really great idea in his life.
> The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.
It's one dude. Maybe a few more dudes will go too. In any case, California will be fine. The largest state in the nation does not depend on one dude.
Larry Page came to California from Michigan, not for the tax rates, but to attend Stanford. Last time I checked, Stanford still exists, and is still in California.
Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.
California can certainly choose how to tax it’s residents and businesses and they will own the results of those decisions. Personally I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing and will help encourage new business investment. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
> Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.
The subject of the HN submission is the California wealth tax, which affects only billionaires. There are only about 200 in California. Moreover, only a few of those billionaires have left California, or are threatening to leave. So, I'm "laser focused" on the subject of the HN submission and puzzled by your remark here. Note that Larry Page's name is literally included in the submission title. I don't know what else I should be talking about here.
> I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing
That isn't the purpose of the wealth tax. And again, there are only about 200 billionaires in California, so even if they all left, which isn't happening, that's practically nothing compared to the total population of almost 40 million.
I haven't investigated, but my suspicion would be that high housing prices are a significant reason for people leaving California. Creating another Google wouldn't help at all with that. To the contrary, it would probably drive up the housing prices even more. Even big tech company employees find the housing prices ridiculous!
They have money that you don't think certain people deserve and you want it for your own purposes. Your method of separating the money from them is by force. Not sure what else you would call it?
> The idea that Iranians are marching in the streets begging for a monarchy is so absurd only the dumbest will believe it.
What they are begging for is change. What they know practically is basically two forms of government in modern memory. It would not be unusual to advocate for the other alternate you know or your grandparents have told you about.
I tend to view these reports through 2 user lenses. User 1 - the user who generally uses signed, safe software, using the device for non-engineering productivity, content consumption, and creative uses.
Then there is the user 2s. Thats the user with the unsigned software. That download and compiles the random “Show HN” without deep examination. That is experimenting at the lower levels, and might have written some home brewed scripts and apps running on their device.
Generally the user 1s aren’t complaining about updates unless there is an controversial UI or UX change. These are the more reliable reference group for the overall success or failure of an OS update.
User 2s contain all the edge cases configurations that the OS publisher can never fully test for, and generally just aren't reliable evaluators of OS updates.
Good luck, the US is still trying to get the equal rights amendment (which everyone basically agrees with) ratified for going on 54 years now.
I cant imagine the process gyrations and political wrangling it would take to convince our political leadership in congress and basically every red state legislature to take on a new amendment specifically tuned just towards prisoner’s rights.
He was at least 35, a natural born citizen of the US, had residency for at least 14 years prior to his candidacy, only served a single term prior, and was never charged and convicted with insurrection.
Of course he was allowed, he met all the constitutional criteria to serve.
reply