Strictly speaking, in the US system the President isn't allowed to bypass Congress. Congress makes the laws and sets the budget and the President is suppose to execute on what Congress decides, which is ostensibly supposed to reflect the will of the people. Even executive orders can't override existing law or the Constitution. The President isn't supposed to be able to go to war without Congressional approval. The three branches of government are supposed to be equal and mutually oppositional in their power.
The (im)balance of power we have now is very much not what was originally intended, but it can only persist because Congress and the Supreme Court are complicit in granting the Executive near absolute authority, which is only being kept in check at the moment by lower courts.
I don't think it would be possible without a serious restructuring of the Democratic Party. It's far too beholden to capital and corporate interests and too afraid to be seen as "socialist" to allow someone like Mamdani anywhere near levers of national power.
>Can things happen that are possible via mechanisms you don't understand, or are incapable of grasping because of your sensory/intellectual limitations?
Possibly, but I fully believe science is capable of explaining these mechanisms, because thus far science has been able to explain everything that theists claimed was supernatural in nature, while no evidence has been found to justify belief in the supernatural.
So this is, at best, an argument that scientific models are incomplete (which no one would disagree with) but not that scientific models are invalid, or that the supernatural is real.
>I don't think that's what happened there.
Their claim was that science cannot prove the supernatural, but the only possible evidence would be personal testimonials - and we're in a subthread litigating the supernatural claims surrounding the Exodus story - which only exist in the Bible. So I respectfully disagree. They were literally arguing that the fact that these claims were written in the Bible was evidence of their veracity.
Also, science should be able to prove the supernatural, as every claim about the supernatural is that it manifests in some physical, tangible form in our universe, which means it must leave some kind of evidence.
>No, the point is that the scientific method is not the only way to prove that things in the past happened.
It is, though. Claims alone don't prove anything. We prove that things happened in the past by discovering evidence of it, through artifacts or documents, and finding corroborating evidence, which is science.
>How would you explain yourself to a two-dimensional person, and reveal yourself to its world?
First, demonstrate that two dimensional people exist, otherwise it's a nonsense question.
People observe and record all sorts of crazy things all the time, including for all of the religions you don't believe in, but that doesn't mean anything. You're just asking people to assume what the Bible says about the supernatural is real, and offering the lack of scientific evidence as supporting evidence for the Bible. I don't think you understand how profoundly unconvincing that argument is to people who don't already operate under the theistic model of reality that you do.
If you're trying to convert people with apologetics, this specific line of attack isn't going to be effective.
Could it be that later generations of archeologists took the opposite view because the preponderance of evidence uncovered in that time pointed in that direction (and because the cultural and political stigma against contradicting the Bible diminished over time,) or are you implying that the interpretation of archaeological evidence either way is simply a matter of arbitrary personal preference?
And notwithstanding that, there is absolutely no credible evidence of the supernatural at all.
On what basis do you believe the Bible and its supernatural claims could have happened?
>Of course the supernatural events could have happened! Unless you're certain that:
Yes, I am certain of these things because I am an adult with an education, and an awareness of the difference between mythology and reality.
If you believe in magic, and that the Bible describes reality more correctly than the entirety of science, and that archaeology and Biblical scholarship are all wrong, and that somehow out of all of the religions that humans have concocted only the Abrahamic God is the correct one, then the onus is on you to prove that.
We know the Exodus didn't happen because the supernatural elements described cannot have happened, and there is no evidence of any such mass migration in the archeological record, nor any non-Biblical references to such an event taking place.
It may be the case that the Exodus tale is a recontexualization of various historical memories of nomadic resettlement combined with political narrative, but the actual story as described in the actual Bible didn't happen.
Spend some time on HN reading people's comments about how AI frees them and liberates their minds and lets them be creative in ways that were never possible before and how anyone who thinks otherwise is just a Luddite. You'll realize how not obvious it is to many people.
You (collective you, not you personally) are just consuming a product. The LLM is a product. The model is a product.
You're reheating spam from the can in the microwave and acting like you're Gordon Ramsey. But you don't know how to cook, all you know how to do is push buttons. And worst of all, you probably think anyone who bothers to learn how to prepare food with their hands is a rube.
Youtube is very obviously social media. It is a platform that serves algorithmically sorted third party content based on user preferences and a network of accounts that a user follows, and it allows communication between users through comments. It has communities. It has memes. It is certainly addictive in all of the ways social media can be.
You're basically describing the structure of the most popular manga and anime genre in the world, and some of the top sellers in that genre have been able to keep the power scaling up for years if not decades. It isn't a problem if you do it right.
Also few superhero movies that I'm aware of actually follow that format. Even the long runners like Superman and Batman tend to only focus on one or a few familiar villains and essentially rehashing their hero's origin story every time, and in the MCU Thanos was always in the background, but the heroes themselves consisted of wizards and demigods. And Hawkeye was also there.
Batman beating Superman in any universe is just stupid, I'll grant you that much. I don't care how much prep time you have, you're not defeating a being that can bench press the moon and slice cities in half with eye lasers like Ramiel in NGE. And you're literally just a rich asshole dressed like a bat.
Cool. How would you make your phone stop spying on you, right now?
Presumably you still need to use it, so simply turning it off and throwing it out and never using a smartphone again isn't an option. So how you you keep using your phone while making it stop spying on you?
That's fair criticism. The US isn't that unique in terms of colonialist expansion in the New World and I honestly forgot about Haiti. I just knew that Britain managed to end slavery without a war but I forgot about Haiti and its uprising.
Not every country or tribe has been engaged in near continuous violence for over two centuries. That isn't simply "fighting many wars" it's being "existentially bound to warfare." The US is peculiar. It's the nation born of a continent-wide campaign of genocide and plunder. It's the only Western nation that couldn't give up slavery without a civil war. It's the only nation to wage nuclear war, and did so primarily against civilians. It's (for the time being) the world's only superpower, with a military orders of magnitude larger than any other. It put the right to shoot people into its Constitution because its founders wanted a government that normalized regular revolutionary violence as a civic principle.
The US is weirdly attached to violence and war in ways you only tend to find in modern dictatorships or the empires of old.
>but they should be the final say after all other mechanisms
They shouldn't be, and they aren't. The mods make the final decision and they will work against the consensus when they disagree with it. This is a very aggressively curated community.
>If this were true, the majority of frontpage-entries would have to be removed.
Maybe the majority of frontpage entries should be removed. Maybe the "HN is turning into Reddit" people are finally correct. But that is literally what the guidelines say. On topic - "Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." Off topic - everything else, with the minor exception of "some new and interesting phenomenon" to gratify that intellectual curiosity.
I'm sorry but there is nothing new or interesting about the death of celebrities, and nothing about it to gratify intellectual curiosity. Their lives, maybe, but if someone wasn't worth discussing on Hacker News in life, they shouldn't be worth discussing post mortem.
>The exception seems to be always news which are so important or dramatic that they are still not removed, and leaving the final decision to the upvotes.
The final decision, in that case, is entirely up to the moderators. Threads with plenty of upvotes get flagged and stay flagged all the time.
>Despite being called hacker news, reality is not binary and rules should not be handled like that.
Maybe. But if there are grey areas, this doesn't seem like one of them. I don't see why far more substantive stories so often get flagged for "politics" or being "non-technical" even when they involve a pile of dead bodies, or why we police humor and emotion like signs of cancer, but we get to wallow in the nostalgia of every dead celebrity that comes along.
https://krapp.masto.host