If you are invited to visit someone's home, and you go, and say nasty things to the homeowner, you'll be tossed out despite your right to free speech.
If you're a guest in another country, act like a guest.
When I was living on a military base in Germany, I and my family were required to behave as a guest of the Germans. The military was quite strict about that.
I didn't have any issue with that. When I travel to another country, I behave as if I was their guest, which I was.
A couple times there were protests in a country I was visiting, and I stayed well away from them.
A country is not a house. Conflating the legal framework of a nation-state with the etiquette of a private living room is a category error. As John Locke demonstrated when refuting the patriarchal theory of government, political power is fundamentally distinct from household authority. A private home is governed by the unilateral property rights of an owner; a republic operates via constitutional law and public rights.
Pretending the rules of a private domicile apply to a jurisdiction by analogy is a sleight of hand. It operates like arguing that because memory safety is a strict requirement in system architecture, we must ensure human memories remain uncorrupted. The domains function under entirely different mechanics. A non-citizen in a public space is constrained by statutory law (and our statutory law is based on our understanding of inherent freedoms), not the etiquette of a houseguest.
The point remains, however. If you're here on a visa, the visa can be revoked, and you can be ejected. Revoking a visa is not a criminal sanction and not a violation of your rights, as there is no right to a visa. Your citizenship cannot be revoked.
The maxim, "a government of laws, not of men" means state power should be exercised according to consistent principles and policy even beyond the letter of the law, not at the whim of bureaucrats or even leadership. Because it's generally impossible to draft laws to enumerate every possible scenario, contingency, and condition, statutes tend to nominally grant powers broader than for the purposes intended, even when there's no intent for them to be applied beyond the original purpose. For practical and procedural reasons courts typically only safeguard this principle by looking to whether the law nominally grants a power to do something, rather than if the power is rightfully exercised under a more wholistic and detailed interpretation of the laws, but the principle is still enshrined in US organic law, and in jurisprudence generally. Courts often do scrutinize exercises of state power to determine whether they violate this principle, but which applications are scrutinized tend to be a function of contemporary political debates and a courts ideological makeup.
These deportations are an interesting study in how this plays out, because historically immigration and, especially, deportations is an area of law where the usual rule pertains. But free speech is the complete opposite, where for the past 100 years courts are much more scrutinizing; indeed, precedent in free speech case law requires explicit, deliberate, and fine-grained application of varying levels of scrutiny in each, individual case, a process which is quite exceptional even in cases involving constitutional powers and rights.
It's worth pointing out that prior to the modern legal era, free speech law was quite different, both nationally and at the state level. Regulations and applications of regulations that incidentally impinged upon speech, but which otherwise clearly derived from legitimate state powers, received very light of any scrutiny. Regulation of commercial activity, for example, usually would not be considered to violate free speech rights even if it prohibited certain speech outright, so long as enforcement was nominally directed at commercial activity per se.
I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that revoking a visa is not a criminal sanction, and the Dept of State has broad discretion wrt visas.
The person who wrote the article was at a protest. I presume he was identified as being there via his cell phone. Then, being a visa holder, he was investigated for being a security risk. He evidently was not deemed to be one, his visa was not revoked, and he was not charged with anything.
BTW, I'd be spooked, too, if federal agents arrived at my door to question me.
> I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that revoking a visa is not a criminal sanction, and the Dept of State has broad discretion wrt visas.
Their 1st sentence said clearly bureaucrats or even leadership should not have broad discretion I thought. And they did not say criminal sanction. What did you think implied it?
Different rules apply to members of the military stationed on a treaty-based foreign military base.
However, as a thought experiment, let's go with your flawed analogy: Even then, this person was acting like a guest -- it is a long-cherished American tradition to exercise our constitutionally-protected right to free speech, assemble, and yes, protest. Nothing's more American than speaking against Government oppression and overreach.
The government is not your owner. The government is not your father. You are a participant in the affairs of your country, and take responsibility in its direction. Civic engagement and right to protest are important tools to make our government accountable. These are fundamental American values. And you're welcome to bring friends. It's legal.
> Different rules apply to members of the military stationed on a treaty-based foreign military base.
Members of the military and their families stationed in a foreign country are required to behave as guests of the host country. This is not a joke and is not taken lightly by the command. Also, an officer who cannot control the behavior of his family is not fit to be an officer.
Maybe things have changed since I was a boy, but I hope not.
I agree with you - I was saying that members of the military & their families have treaty-defined standards of being in the country & thus required to behave a certain way, whereas a regular visitor or student visa comes with a different set of rules and not regulated by a military cooperation treaty.
And in this case, the people gave the state department broad authority to remove people on visas. Why would you want someone to travel to this country to protest? Would we want Putin sending people over to protest against our involvement in the Ukraine war? Would you want China sending over protesters to reduce tariffs?
A core of democracy is a finite pool of voters, and infinite immigration and foreign protests are a direct threat to our democracy in a way that removing someone on visa isn't.
I think this is common sense advice rather than a philosophical stance about free speech, said advice being generalized as "When in a foreign country, avoid trouble." As an example, if you visit China and start FA about Tibet, you will FO pretty soon, no matter how right you are about free speech.
Yes, this case is a travesty, but that does not change the soundness of the advice.
I find the idea of a non citizen protesting and causing social unrest diabolical. Most international students, (whether studying in the US or Europe or Australia or Malaysia or indeed anywhere else) understand that their visa does not grant them the same substantive rights that citizens of a country get. That’s as it should be.
I couldn’t care less about a non citizen’s non existent free speech rights, nor would I expect to be provided rights exclusively afforded to citizens of a country in which I was visiting. Some of you guys have clearly never travelled outside your home countries.
I applied for a visa and crossed borders enough times to remember this: visas can be refused and revoked for any reason at all. And a border guard is within rights to deny you entry for any reason whatsoever.
Understanding these things made my life much easier.
That’s correct. I’m a Visa holder. I have the right to free speech, but I don’t have the right to be in the USA. And when I’m outside of the USA, the government really doesn’t care about my freedom of speech one way or the other.
The US Constitution limits the legislature's ability to pass laws restricting speech. The Executive revoking a noncitizen's student visa does not breach that Constitutional protection.
I could imagine someone arriving after independence and advocating against the new government, insisting that they return to King George, would indeed Find Out.
Are launch costs really 10x!? Could I get a source for that?
In the back on my head this all seemed astronomically far-fetched, but 5.5 million to get 8 GPUs in space... wild. That isn't even a single TB of VRAM.
Are you maybe factoring in the cost to powering them in space in that 5 million?
The Falcon Heavy is $97 million per launch for 64000 kg to LEO, about $1,500 per kg. Starship is gonna be a factor 10 or if you believe Elon a factor 100 cheaper. A single NVidia system is ~140kg. So a single flight can have 350 of them + 14000kg for the system to power it. Right now 97 million to get it into space seems like a weird premium.
Maybe with Starship the premium is less extreme? $10 million per 350 NVidia systems seems already within margins, and $1M would definitely put it in the range of being a rounding error.
But that's only the Elon style "first principles" calculation. When reality hits it's going to be an engineering nightmare on the scale of nuclear power plants. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd spend a billion just figuring out how to get a datacenter operational in space. And you can build a lot of datacenters on earth for a billion.
If you ask me, this is Elon scamming investors for his own personal goals, which is just the principle of having AI be in space. When AI is in space, there's a chance human derived intelligence will survive an extinction event on earth. That's one of the core motivations of Elon.
1. It's a moral good (free as in freedom). Wider Linux adoption makes software more free for everyone and creates a feedback loop: more users means more engineering effort, which improves the many many projects we colloquially call Linux, which (i++) attracts more users. As a corollary to #1: do you really want Billy G spying on your mom?
2. It's often better for the environment to keep old hardware running (manufacturing emissions usually dwarf operational ones for consumer devices).
And a more personal corollary to #2: I love old hardware and don't want to see it die (and I'm not talking about vintage tech). A 16+ core Haswell Xeon (that riiiing) and Polaris RX 480 (HWS, why yes) remain perfectly useful in the modern world. I like knowing both are out there, somewhere, just chugging away long after they were retired from some server or mining operation.
> Wider Linux adoption makes software more free for everyone and creates a feedback loop: more users means more engineering effort, which improves the many many projects we colloquially call Linux
I don't think it is necessarily true. More users may mean that some platform (say Ubuntu) gets so much traction that the rest becomes irrelevant. I already see "free as in freedom" projects that only support the last two versions of Ubuntu, and couldn't care less about other distros. To the point where they will have hard dependencies on things that only work on Ubuntu and are very difficult to adapt to other distros.
> I love old hardware and don't want to see it die
I have a counter-example with Android. Android/AOSP is pretty good with backward compatibility. It is pretty easy for a developer to compile an app for older devices, the OS totally supports it.
But developers/companies will just happily target newer devices and drop older ones ("98% of our users are on Android "X", let's drop the support for older ones") and tend to test their apps on recent hardware (meaning that a perfectly fine device will still be able to run the app, but it will lag to the point where it is unusable). Happened to me: I had to change my phone because random apps (like banking or weather forecast, I'm not talking high-performance like games here) became unusable. A banking app just shows a few numbers, still they manage to make it lag on a phone from 2020.
This seems to suffer from a finite-size effect. Wolfram's machines have a tiny state space (s ≤ 4, k ≤ 3). For some class of NP problems, this will be insufficient to encode complex algorithms and is low dimensional enough that it is unlikely to be able to encode hard instances ("worst case") of the problem class. The solution space simply cannot support them.
In this regime, hard problem classes only have easy solutions, think random k-SAT below the satisfiability threshold, where algorithms like FIX (Coja-Oghlan) approximate the decision problem in polynomial time. In random k-SAT, the "hardness" cannot emerge away from the phase transition and by analogy (watch my hand wave in the wind so free) I can imagine that they would not exist at small scales. Almost like the opposite of the overlap gap property.
Wolfram's implicit counter-claim seems to be that the density of irreducibility among small machines approximates the density in the infinite limit (...or something? Via his "Principle of Computational Equivalence"), but I'm not following that argument. I am sure someone has brought this up to him! I just don't understand his response. Is there some way of characterizing / capturing the complexity floor of a given problem (For an NP-hard Problem P the reduced space needs to be at least as big as S to, WHP, describe a few hard instances)?
No lol, Stephen Wolfram is more invested in his writings than he is in Mathematica. He genuinely believes he’s going to revolutionize math and physics.
He’s smarter than your average nutjob, but he’s still a bit of a crank.
I think you have it wrong. Wolfram's claim is that for a wide array of small (s,k) (including s <= 4, k <= 3), there's complex behavior and a profusion of (provably?) Turing machine equivalent (TME) machines. At the end of the article, Wolfram talks about awarding a prize in 2007 for a proof that (s=2,k=3) was TME.
The `s` stands for states and `k` for colors, without talking at all about tape length. One way to say "principle of computational equivalence" is that "if it looks complex, it probably is". That is, TME is the norm, rather than the exception.
If true, this probably means that you can make up for the clunky computation power of small (s,k) by conditioning large swathes of input tape to overcome the limitation. That is, you have unfettered access to the input tape and, with just a sprinkle of TME, you can eeke out computation by fiddling with the input tape to get the (s,k) machine to run how you want.
So, if finite sized scaling effects were actually in effect, it would only work in Wolfram's favor. If there's a profusion of small TME (s,k), one would probably expect computation to only get easier as (s,k) increases.
I think you also have the random k-SAT business wrong. There's this idea that "complexity happens at the edge of chaos" and I think this is pretty much clearly wrong.
Random k-SAT is, from what I understand, effectively almost surely polynomial time solveable. Below the critical threshold, it's easy to determine in the negative if the instance is unsolvable (I'm not sure if DPLL works, but I think something does?). Above the threshold, when it's almost surely solveable, I think something as simple as walksat will work. Near, or even "at", the threshold, my understanding is that something like survey propagation effectively solves this [0].
k-SAT is a little clunky to work in, so you might take issue with my take on it being solveable but if you take something like Hamiltonian cycle on (Erdos-Renyi) random graphs, the Hamiltonian cycle has a phase transition, just like k-SAT (and a host of other NP-Complete problems) but does have a provably an almost sure polynomial time algorithm to determine Hamiltonicity, even at the critical threshold [1].
There's some recent work with trying to choose "random" k-SAT instances with different distributions, and I think that's more hopeful at being able to find difficult random instances, but I'm not sure there's actually been a lot of work in that area [2].
The only thing desperate is people plugging their ears and lalala-ing “HN is not for politics.”
The tech talk here is embarrassingly shallow. Depth is now the rare exception. If I want deep dives, I’ll go see about some crabs. This place now exists to launder the tech worldview, and that’s an inherently political act. Pretending it isn’t doing that is political too.
Like most folks here nowadays, I primarily come for the politics. The difference is I’m not lying to myself about my posture.
I still primarily come for the tech/hacker vibe, but also understand and accept that continually hitting snooze on important political items will threaten my future ability to enjoy the former.
I also respect the fact that this is run by an SV incubator and everything that entails. Out of all the discussion platforms, this one is still the most sane, for now. Moderation is a thankless job, and they do a pretty good job with that around here compared to all of the alternatives.
I consider myself extremely confrontational on here (especially compared to myself in meatworld), but in my 13 years on HN I have had only one direct disagreement with dang, and it was about the definition of the hazelnut spread Nutella.
I am sure he and I disagree on most things, but I don't fault the primary moderator. In general, dang seems pretty laissez-faire. I am venting at the flag brigade: what news gets flagged, and more importantly what doesn't.
I come here to stick my thumb in the wind and see what the prevailing tech view is. As for the tech itself, I am more "if I learn something cool along the way, neat," so I guess I am here for the vibe as well. I just wish folks were more honest about what HN is (like you are being here). Things change; it's okay for them to change.
> The only thing desperate is people plugging their ears and lalala-ing “HN is not for politics.”
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Do you honestly think I have not read that before?
I don't even know where that is posted, I just see folks quote it all the time. I obviously don't abide, those were written at a different time on a different internet with a different HN.
NOTE: I slightly restructured this without noticing the reply. The poster below is not misquoting me in anyway.
It's intentionally stochastic, outlining a preferred shape of topics and allowing exceptions that engage and promote novel and curious discussion.
These are novel and interesting times, no doubt, and yet there's still an exuberance of drum banging and closed minded repetition on various topics leading to many but not all of the current event threads being organically weighted down.
The person you're replying to doesn't abide by their own stated principles. It's a mistake to think that they're merely reminding you of the rules. No, it's an order.
Just look at how many political comments they made. Especially the downvoted and/or flagged ones. They are horrendous. So many words spent justifying ICE murders and lying about how the victims were violent terrorists. They spend all day thinking about how best to downplay the egregious actions of the current regime, at one point writing how ICE agent's masks are just merely "face/neck warmers."
This isn't a person who should be taken seriously.
They also recently complained about their own experience being downvoted and flagged for ostensibly political reasons, which also cuts against the guidelines. It’s selective adherence at best.
> Do you honestly think I have not read that before? Like seriously?
It immediately and completely refutes your position, so if you have read it then you have no excuse.
> I don't even know where that is posted, I just see folks quote it all the time.
It is in one of the links in the page footer.
> I obviously don't abide, those were written at a different time with a different HN.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The policy is there for a reason, and I'm confident that any of the moderators will happily tell you that it's meant exactly as seriously now as it was at the beginning. But you don't have to take my word for it; you can also email hn@ycombinator.com.
I am so confused wrt what you are attempting to do.
I literally do not care what the policy says. Must I say it that way? The policy
(1) is logically incoherent
(2) is not policed in an equitable way
(3) is used to launder a worldview to young tech workers just coming to hn
(4) ... do I need to keep going? because I can keep saying stuff
(5) is just random bits on a server
I don't like it, many people don't like it, it has a negative chilling effect on the hn community. I am regularly voicing my concern in an effort to create my desired outcome. FWIW, the folks that want the rules changed are generally the most aware of them.
In all seriousness, I don't know a ton about her, but, if her Wikipedia is to be believed, the only thing she is guilty of is being a little "Leave Brittney Alone" extra while living through a genocide:
This is embarrassing to admit, but I miss the halcyon days when folks were still nominally pretending to be free speech warriors.
reply