Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#111

Post by goatlover »

iso1631 wrote: post #101
voidfunc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This won't happen. Mostly because the next administration that is a counter to this current administration won't happen. The electoral process in the US is effectively cooked.

There's no demand for it. Half of the US still likes what's happening, half the ones that don't are only concerned because gas prices are a little high.

Trump's approval rating is in the mid to high 30 percentile even according to Fox News polling. He's lost most of the independents and minority coalition vote who naively thought the economy go back to what it was in his first term pre Covid-inflation. Never mind his love for tariffs and fossil fuels.

I don't really understand what the 35%+ still sees in Trump. Massive fraud, abuse of power, covering up Epstein files, more war in the ME, the president is ranting at 3am on his social media. He's falling asleep in meetings and looking more frail all the time. And worst of all, he's still trying to undermine elections.

Guess I have to accept the fact that 1/3 of the American public wants an authoritarian figure to rule over us without any real checks or balances. They don't want anyone in Congress or the courts to oppose his excesses.

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#112

Post by airstrike »

dylan604 wrote: post #98
airstrike wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SCOTUS has already given POTUS immunity in any form other than impeachment followed by a conviction. That's not exactly accurate and that nuanced difference may be the key to holding the executive branch accountable, now that we're in this disastrous state of the world.

Should have added IANAL, so any inaccuracies are definitely introduced by my layman's explanation. What nuances are left then? What small amount of hope can be gleaned from the ruling?

Specifically, POTUS has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that are within their constitutional authority, presumptive immunity from all official acts (but not absolute), and no immunity from unofficial, private acts committed by the president.

Congress could also pass legislature or constitutional amendments to revert the effect of that tragic decision, though of course those also come with their own sets of challenges.

(IANALE btw)

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#113

Post by gchamonlive »

msandford wrote: post #91
gchamonlive wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie Sanders warned right when the second Trump admin started that the country was effectively an olygarchy https://youtu.be/79KDKWEOJ1s . I wrote https://xd1.dev/2025/09/not-buying-american-anymore that made frontpage here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45277346 discussing the consequences of an irresponsible admin through the lenses of consumer rights. It's nice that now we are seeing more widespread accept…

Are you new to the club? I saw these problems you're talking about with Biden, Trump1, Obama and Bush Jr. Of course I'm not old enough to really know about what Clinton or Bush Sr or Reagan or anyone before that did. I know it's super annoying to have someone rain on your "but THIS stuff is REALLY bad!" parade, but that the rulers are corrupt isn't new. It's just new to a lot of people.

So you think Trump2 is equivalent to all the presidents before?

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#114

Post by shimman »

hdndjsbbs wrote: post #89
mc32 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The previous admin also ruled via executive order. It said it would find ways to do things even if struck down by the SCOTUS such as the school loan forgiveness, firearms controls, speech suppression via “embeds” etc.

The myth of the Supreme Court having any check on executive power was disproven by the "switch in time to save 9", where Owen Roberts agreed to stop obstructing The New Deal so FDR wouldn't implement court-packing and term limits. That was almost 90 years ago.

Why is this a bad thing? The New Deal literally created a society that allowed the country to flourish for a solid 50 years before neoliberal economics took hold.

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#115

Post by dylan604 »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #107
dylan604 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS has already given POTUS immunity in any form other than impeachment followed by a conviction. The problem with that is that just removes POTUS from office. It does nothing to punish for those crimes that were deemed worthy enough of being impeached/convicted. SCOTUS said that POTUS cannot be held accountable for things done as official acts of office. So Congress cannot hold POTUS criminally accountable, but r…

I am curious of that allows the new President, while in office, to assassinate the previous one and insta-pardon himself. It's amazing how much of America's political stability might rest not on the law, but rather on the self-restraint of each cohort's leadership.

Let's not forget the complacency of this Congress. POTUS could not get away with this nonsense if Congress would do its job. The right has been working their way to this perfect scenario for decades with gerrymandering at the state level, Congress refusing to accept a SCOTUS nominee from POTUS holding out that the next POTUS would be their guy, and all of the other nonsense that has happened to get us to this spot.

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#116

Post by yieldcrv »

stymaar wrote: post #49

For the past year and a half, the US administration have plunged the country in a rule of law twilight zone: the rule of law still exists, and there are still independent jurisdictions to enforce it, but the administration decided they didn't care, and they just overcome any court dismissal of their orders with a new illegal order that courts will have to push back a few month later. Which means that, in practice, th…

will take 4 years to neutralize all of the rationals to support each topic

pretty good bet for the head of an administration that only lasts 4 years

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#117

Post by TacticalCoder »

mostlysimilar wrote: post #54
stymaar wrote: post #49

For the past year and a half, the US administration have plunged the country in a rule of law twilight zone: the rule of law still exists, and there are still independent jurisdictions to enforce it, but the administration decided they didn't care, and they just overcome any court dismissal of their orders with a new illegal order that courts will have to push back a few month later. Which means that, in practice, th…

The future of the US depends on these people being held accountable by the next administration, and structural reforms to make their abuses harder to do again in the future.

> The future of the US depends on these people being held accountable by the next administration ...

OK but who was signing in place of the totally senile Biden? The autopen is a thing. That puppet wasn't functional anymore. Yet "he" was signing things.

Who's being held accountable for the deep state that was guiding Biden's hand?

Nobody. Just as this administration isn't holding anyone accountable for any of the misdeeds done under Biden, nothing is going to happen next.

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#118

Post by dylan604 »

airstrike wrote: post #112
dylan604 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should have added IANAL, so any inaccuracies are definitely introduced by my layman's explanation. What nuances are left then? What small amount of hope can be gleaned from the ruling?

Specifically, POTUS has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that are within their constitutional authority, presumptive immunity from all official acts (but not absolute), and no immunity from unofficial, private acts committed by the president. Congress could also pass legislature or constitutional amendments to revert the effect of that tragic decision, though of course those also come with thei…

Congress can pass whatever, but POTUS would still have to sign it. Even this Congress is not veto proof

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#119

Post by msandford »

gchamonlive wrote: post #113
msandford wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you new to the club? I saw these problems you're talking about with Biden, Trump1, Obama and Bush Jr. Of course I'm not old enough to really know about what Clinton or Bush Sr or Reagan or anyone before that did. I know it's super annoying to have someone rain on your "but THIS stuff is REALLY bad!" parade, but that the rulers are corrupt isn't new. It's just new to a lot of people.

So you think Trump2 is equivalent to all the presidents before?

I think this kind of corruption has been going on for a long time. Look at this case and how a Supreme Court decision didn't really get respected despite it being pretty clear. However bad you think any one thing Trump has done is, this is almost certainly as bad for the feeling of the rule of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

Just to be clear I'm not trying to say what's happening is good or right. Just that it's not new. And I used something really old to try and "prove" it's not a recent phenomena and help people maybe see past the recency bias.

Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal

#120

Post by airstrike »

dylan604 wrote: post #118
airstrike wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, POTUS has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that are within their constitutional authority, presumptive immunity from all official acts (but not absolute), and no immunity from unofficial, private acts committed by the president. Congress could also pass legislature or constitutional amendments to revert the effect of that tragic decision, though of course those also come with thei…

Congress can pass whatever, but POTUS would still have to sign it. Even this Congress is not veto proof

A future POTUS might be willing to sign it, though yeah, it doesn't help with the current situation. That would still need to be artfully litigated.
Post reply on HN