Pensions should be banned. The entire notion of a guaranteed income is unrealistic and incredibly expensive. People need to save and manage their own spending and savings responsibly. Taxes for redistribution make sense within some range of policies but simply telling people they’ll be guaranteed a certain income? With various loopholes to maximize pensions? It’s no surprise that many pension funds are in the red.
And the pensions mentioned in the article are an example of this. It mentions that two workers supporting each pensioner is a problem. How? If that’s the case wouldn’t these two workers eventually need four workers to support them as pensioners? What makes this different from a Ponzi scheme?
Also I somewhat question that money will have same purchasing power in future if either of population and productivity growth fails. The idea is that you save now and in future there is enough labour to buy... Which is likely to fail. You can make numbers look like anything. But that does not solve the issue that people need to be willing to do something for you for price you can pay.
Well for one, Trump is likely compromised by China. His family owns properties there. He had much stronger tariffs on friends of America than on China. And he held off on banning TikTok even though the law required it. China doesn’t have to be tariff proof. It just needs an incompetent corrupt adversary like Trump, who is only competent at making money for himself at the taxpayer’s expense.
It’s crazy that Hegseth has a Christian nationalist tattoo on his chest. And watching him bully the Boy Scouts into becoming a “god centric” program, the Nazi Christian vibes are strong.
Edit - to respond to some of the replies all at once:
- German swastika is literally a different symbol than Buddhist and Hindu swastikas
- If Hegseth is actually proclaiming he's an extremist maybe use that proclamation as evidence rather than demonising a cross motif that existed nearly a millennia before the United States
- And whoever thinks the crusades were about slaughtering non-believers seems to not know anything about history, Jerusalem was Christian for centuries before Mohammed was even born and the Muslims were the invaders...
- It's extremely hypocritical to call Christian symbols "extremist" or whatever while giving a pass to symbols from a certain other religion that's particularly fond of conquest and has conquered significantly more previously Christian regions than the reverse...
I don't know much about the Kingdom of Jerusalem per se, but even today many Jews say prayers specifically written after the Crusades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
So the symbols of "hope and triumph of establishing Christianity in the Holy Land" do not evoke particularly positive connotations, even aside from the usual modern opposition to that particular mission.
The shooter who committed the 2019 New Zealand mosque massacre thought that.
Fellow members and leaders of Hegseth's National Guard unit thought that.
Crusader symbols in general have grown popular with many far-right nationalists, who see the imagery as a nod to an era of European Christian wars against Muslims and Jews.
Contemporary usage of symbols is often at odds with and regardless of any historic original back story and meaning.
> If Hegseth is actually proclaiming he's an extremist ...
Nope, he's always banging on about being a Proud, Patriotic, American, Christian, Nationalist. I can't say I've ever heard him proclaim himself to be an extremist ... save perhaps in the extreme love of God and America he professes to have. You can hear him Capitalise the words as he spits them forth.
Who on earth thinks the buddhist swastika is a German nationalist symbol? Oh, right, everyone who saw Nazis use it. Turns out that when one group uses a symbol to represent themselves, that symbol becomes associated with them. Go figure.
In this case it's not even "a symbol represents who it is used by". You literally linked to an article that espouses about how it's a symbol of the Crusades, i.e. united Christendom coming together to slaughter non-believers, in other words it has always been a symbol of hatred.
> Linear is the shared product system that turns context into execution.
I agree it’s weird, but this is a pattern many companies are applying. They’re desperate to look like an AI company and to centralize themselves as the place where everything happens. It helps with investors and some customers.
But yes I think having agents in these products is weird - and most people would rather access the basic features / data via their own agent of choice, outside these products.
Of course they killed cases against Trump friendly companies. It also means everyone else loses. Smaller companies with little wrongdoing will occupy the attention of the agencies.
Pensions in general feel like a scam. How can you guarantee a certain income? Such predictability is just not possible in real life, which is why so many pension funds don’t have enough assets. And so they turn into a Ponzi scheme. This seems to be true in every state or country where they exist.
Call this an “AGI CPU” just feels like the most out of touch, terrible marketing possible. Maybe this is unfair but it makes me think ARM as a whole is incompetent just because it is so tasteless.
> Arm has additionally partnered with Supermicro on a liquid-cooled 200kW design capable of housing 336 Arm AGI CPUs for over 45,000 cores.
Also just bad timing on trying to brag about a partnership with Supermicro, after a founder was just indicted on charges of smuggling Nvidia GPUs. Just bizarre to mention them at all.
In the UK at least, there are many documented (on video) cases where someone posted something online and was then given an intimidating visit by police at their door in response to their speech. And people are going to jail over speech (https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...).
And as for the EU, it’s obvious many of those in power want to censor. Thierry Breton, the former commissioner for internal markets, was actively trying to use regulations and intimidation to censor information. It’s not debatable, because there is clear evidence not just in regulations about misinformation but also in situations like this:
Let’s also not forget the DSA, its various rules, and how Breton often conflated casual labels of “misinformation” with the idea of illegal content as the DSA regulates. He’s clearly guilty of trying to create an EU-wide framework for what speech is allowed and not.
So I am not sure what TechDirt is even trying to do here. It’s clear there are forces pushing censorship in the continent of Europe. Trying to claim there is “no EU Internet Censorship” is a blatant lie.
> The wife of a conservative politician was sentenced to 31 months in prison for what police said was an unacceptable post.
I feel like that article has a particular slant. From the BBC:
> The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire.
Punishing people for inciting mass murder via arson is not censorship by any reasonable standard.
Also, she really honestly went out of her way to fuck herself over:
> Opening the case, prosecutor Naeem Valli said Connolly also sent a message saying she intended to work her notice period as a childminder "on the sly" - despite being de-registered.
> Mr Valli added: "She then goes on to say that if she were to get arrested she would 'play the mental health card'."
A lesson for insane racists; if caught, stop telling your friends you intend to break the law in other ways. Honestly if not for all the extraneous stuff she might’ve got off.
> It’s clear there are forces pushing censorship in the continent of Europe.
I don't believe that the author Mike Masnick is denying the existence of pro-censorship forces within the EU, and Masnick has criticized the censorship aspects present in the DSA itself [1] (as distinguished from censorship relating to only specific interpretations and implementations of the DSA, as in Thierry Breton's case).
> Trying to claim there is “no EU Internet Censorship” is a blatant lie.
The claim was not that there is literally no EU internet censorship, but that the US federal government under the Trump administration has been claiming instances of EU internet censorship while thus far failing to identify any such instances even though the administration controlled which criteria its investigators used.
As I interpret it, the purpose of TFA is to point out that:
- The US federal government has been using instances of non-censorship as evidence of censorship (e.g. TFA cites [2], which cites [3]).
- The US federal government has censored speech in ways that the DSA could do but hasn't yet done, and the US justified its own censorship by pointing to supposedly-already-happening DSA censorship that hasn't happened.
- The EU "removed" Thierry Breton (actually, he resigned), the current US administration has yet to punish one of its own censors. (This argument is weak to the point of uselessness because Breton's resignation might be unrelated to his censorship, but it's an argument that Masnick is making.) (In place of this point, I previously made a terrible and false generalization by writing: The EU's response to EU government censorship has been more substantial than the US's response to similar US government censorship.)
> It’s quite common for companies to work their way up to the line of the most user hostile version of their product that users will tolerate.
Yes, when there isn’t real competition. And that’s in part due to a long history of anti competitive practices but also simply because Microsoft is too big and should be broken up.
And the pensions mentioned in the article are an example of this. It mentions that two workers supporting each pensioner is a problem. How? If that’s the case wouldn’t these two workers eventually need four workers to support them as pensioners? What makes this different from a Ponzi scheme?
reply