For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | akamaka's commentsregister

It’s not hypothetical at all. The FCC is currently being used for political attacks: https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/28/media/abc-fcc-disney-licenses...

Those who are under attack happen to also be the biggest copyrighter holders, so this would open up a new avenue of attack.


It's not hypothetical nor an unintended consequence. Most likely this is the point

> Those who are under attack happen to also be the biggest copyrighter holders, so this would open up a new avenue of attack.

Don't threaten me with a good time


Conversely you're already not dealing with that, so the letter and spirit of the law are both being ignored and the American voter doesn't care.

> the American voter doesn't care.

The American voter doesn't know because copyright misuse and malfeasance is on a long list of public-impacting topics that news orgs have rigorously ignored for generations.


It's really hard for me to feel sorry for Disney here. Is it possible for both sides to lose a lawsuit?

It's not about feeling bad for Disney. Disney is tremendously powerful, so if the federal government can coerce them to do whatever the federal government wants, that has massive widespread effects for everyone. It creates an environment in which powerful corporations are expected to act as political enforcers, creating a monoculture of ideas and suppressing dissent.

My iPhone 13 performs better since the Liquid Glass update. Animations seem to have been optimized and are much smoother. I also replaced the battery last year, so it might be worth checking if you are getting degraded performance due to a old battery.

The article quotes the creator saying he used AI


Having the title be what it is is like saying a note-taking app is AI-powered if you used Claude to create it.


It says in the article that the creator used OpenAI Codex, presumably because the spectrogram image wouldn’t have enough resolution by itself.


> Future payments in the short term are covered by inflows.

That wouldn’t work in a major depression when there is high unemployment and inflows drop.


Well, it could absorb it because its horizon is past the depression.

Let's not forget, CPPIB underperformed a passive benchmark during the Great Financial Crisis and lost 18.8% in FY09.


Yes, if a retirement fund had put all their money into a stock index in 1926, it wouldn’t have been able to pay out pensions throughout the 1930s and 1940s and would have been bankrupt before the market eventually recovered.

Going full index is a great strategy for an individual person aged 20-50, but not a strategy for a pension fund which needs to continuously pay out.


> Going full index is a great strategy for an individual person aged 20-50, but not a strategy for a pension fund which needs to continuously pay out.

It's OK for a person in their 70s that has a few million in the bank.

This person (CPPIB) has 780 billion and has a sustainability rating for 75 years.


$780 billion divided by 6 million current recipients is a little over $100,000, which is hardly comparable to your wealth retiree example.


Did you realize that CPP's support isn't full income replacement? It's only 10-20k/year per person.

While your metric is common to compare pensions, it's not relevant for debunking ability to survive a recession.

6 million x $100k is 600 billion.

Whereas the annual benefits paid is ONLY 1/10th that at 60 billion/year.

Turn off 80 billion/year in contributions and the investment income (50-60 billion/year) can sustain.


During the Great Depression, the stock market stayed below 50% of its peak value for about 20 years. Imagine that the $600 billion turns into $300 billion overnight. It will only last 5-10 years without inflows, but the GDP has also dropped by 40% and inflows have plummeted.


I saw you say this in another comment.

It's still going back to the same assumptions that you're not only timing a depression but also

(a) don't have pre-funding (i.e., millions for an individual at the start of the depression),

(b) don't have CPPIB guardrails and auto-adjustment mechanisms,

(c) and it's not a partial income replacement scheme.

> It will only last 5-10 years without inflows

Without inflows? That's not realistic because people would still be contributing. In fact, CPPIB has triannual resets of contributions and in a recession, they'd up the contribution rate. In a recent actuarial audit, they found that if real returns dropped to 2.5%, then they'd only need to boost contributions from 9% to 11% to keep their 75-year sustainability target.

The advice that you need to taper off your investment portfolio risk as you get older doesn't really apply to people that have a nest egg. I know a lot of people that aren't necessarily living frugally and are told by their financial advisors that they might as well upgrade their cars, travel more, etc. They can cover their costs and don't have net worth > ~$3 million.


I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. Do you have any interest in understanding why CPPIB invests the way they do and doesn’t seek the highest returns?


You know you're not being fair with that take.

Clearly, I am aware of the CPPIB's structure even citing the Office of Chief Actuary's report regarding downside scenarios and health scores. [0]

[0] https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/oca/actuarial-reports/actuari...

edit:

> if a retirement fund had put all their money into a stock index in 1926, it wouldn’t have been able to pay out pensions throughout the 1930s and 1940s

Point was that this/your rationale doesn't apply to CPPIB's situation.


I just tested this and the default setting is to include location, but once turned off it stays off (unlike the iPhone share sheet where you need to turn it off each time).


Odd, it was off for me the first time I opened that website, maybe it's persisted from some other context.


What’s the point of saying one stat is better than another, when all of them are meaningful in a different way? When renewables reach big numbers of TWh, someone will say “total generation is misleading if doesn’t line up with demand; what matters is capacity for power when we actually need it”.


> what matters is capacity for power when we actually need it

uh,...yea?


And due to weird nuclear fetishism, people seem unaware that solar lines up really well with when people need power.

Both on daily cycles and seasonally for anywhere that uses airconditioning. It's a good fit for 2/3rds of the global population.

Some people live nearer the poles and wind lines up better with their heating needs. And of course you can combine them because they anti-correlate.


I did the same math. The closest guess I have is that it is derived from the poverty line for a family of four, $32150 (which divided by four is $8037).


Nope, I just spent 15 minutes reading the original paper and can’t make any sense of what he is calculating.

International dollars are normalized to USD, so there’s no conversion necessary. The figure he quotes of 63 min per dollar converts to $8343/year. However, his original paper states that he created this measure by inverting income, so the number 8343 is his starting point.

The closest guess I have is that is derived from the poverty line for a family of four, $32150 (which divided by four is $8037).

If that is the case, what he is really doing is comparing poverty line definitions between countries.


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

Search:

HN For You