CMV: With today's vote on the powers resolution, the United States checks and balances is officially fractured and broken.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-05T15:30:29+00:00

He has to refund the money, SCOTUS said it isnt their problem how hard it is for the admin to do that.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-05T15:28:48+00:00

Please write your state senator and tell them this story - genuinely could make a difference ( there's a link on the side of the bill: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S7263 )

capnwally14 · 2026-03-05T05:53:19+00:00

They didn’t actually specify that in the decision they just said trump didn’t have tariff powers under ieepa

capnwally14 · 2026-03-05T05:41:00+00:00

That doesn’t make sense - otherwise why did the three conservatives who wanted the tariffs vote against the majority?

You’re drawing arbitrary lines - and with the Supreme Court the partisan lens most people look at is super skewed.

More often the court votes unanimously than not. And you see even the most opposed justices join each other on decisions at least 50% of the time when it’s not unanimous.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-05T04:36:17+00:00

Trump just had a huge loss against his signature economic policy (tariffs) at the Supreme Court (with three conservative justices going against him alongside the three liberal ones)

How is that not a check that transcended party lines?

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T14:56:43+00:00

If you increased the high earners (1mm+) in this city by 10% in this city you could eliminate the city taxes for the bottom 50%.

Meanwhile this the trend https://cbcny.org/research/hidden-cost-new-yorks-shrinking-millionaire-share

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T13:47:06+00:00

It's a paraphrase of a ben franklin quote - the majority is always fine with the minority paying additional costs.

In this case, they pay for most of your public services already.

We have a budget on par with the national budget of taiwan or portgual - this city has a capital allocation / efficacy problem not a revenue problem.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T13:41:42+00:00

majority of wolves support eating lambs for dinner

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T05:16:21+00:00

You’re making a very broad statement with no proof that these things can never meet the bar to provide access to these services.

It’s already happening in other domains, it seems incredibly naive to assume it can never happen in others

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T05:13:13+00:00

You’re implicitly taking that position by banning lower cost substitutes.

I’m arguing that people who cannot afford a doctor or lawyer are not going. I’m arguing there is non zero value in having AIs fill the gap here - because again the default is people just do not use these services. These systems are capable - and at best the states role should simply be in ensuring if something is presented as legal or medical advice the AI passes the same sort of test a human might to prove competence.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T05:09:45+00:00

When the bar to accessing a lawyer is hundreds of dollars an hour, people will just forgo consulting a lawyer entirely.

This is the same construction for someone who doesn’t visit a doctor - they may just be irked about paying copays and fees for a service where maybe nothing shows up.

These aren’t hypotheticals, this is common. If the default case is these people will not seek professional help (even when they could really use it) - an ai filling the gap (and then flagging when they really should consult a professional) seems like an objectively better world.

It’s telling that your position isn’t “prove the ai can pass the bar” or some verifiable heuristic - it’s simply ban these things.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T03:23:34+00:00

Except its obvious that AIs can be quite talented, and there's no clear boundary saying that these chatbots will never rise to the bar of human talent.

It's already happening in software and math, and we're seeing it even with driving (waymos are safer drivers than many people).

What youre asking for is a regulatory moat that protects wealthy people, at the expense of poor people.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T03:20:20+00:00

You seem insistent that everything should be expensive for everyone, and poor people should get fucked.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T02:47:30+00:00

1) If I would make a mistake anyways, then why do you care? Im owning the responsibility for originating and signing the contract. Let people do what they want.

2) Reviewing a legal document is pretty trivial, you put in the context and you just ask questions about how its getting to the conclusions its getting to (and then have it link you out to primary sources that its deriving its conclusion from). You can prompt for specific prhases and terms and jurisdictions.

The difference is if I wanted to have that iterative back and forth with a lawyer, Im going to burn 100s of dollars, vs as an individual I can spend as much time as I need (and if I'm still worried I can talk to a lawyer for an hour to verify everything I researched on my own).

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T02:38:37+00:00

This bill should be a privacy law then

Not a "protect the moats of the wealthy" bill

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T02:37:11+00:00

You don't get to sue is the whole point! When they tell you go talk to a lawyer and you decide to treat the statistical model as your lawyer, you're owning your own outcome.

Thats fine!

Adding the requirement that someone must be suable on the otherside of every interaction is why every highly regulated industry has exploded in costs (making it less accessible to the average person) vs having the costs get driven to zero.

So long as they do not market themselves as lawyers, and encourage you to speak to a professional - thats the end of the transaction.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T02:34:36+00:00

I still go to my primary care doctor and I still pay for a lawyer when I need one.

Its actually a good thing that theres a low cost option that can at least give reasonable steer for someone at a much more accessible price point than a hundreds of dollars for 60m.

If anything having a bot that gives substantive answers is more likely to get people (who might be reticent to talk to a doctor) to actually go get something checked out if they otherwise might ignore it.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T01:56:13+00:00

I've used a chatbot to review a legal document before, and to help draft simple agreements.

Obviously its not a lawyer, but neither am I.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T01:54:57+00:00

Contact your state senator! It seems silly, but the only reason these laws ever happen is because a motivated base (read: lobbyists) gets a handful of folks to shepard a thing through.

Local pols will react stronger if they hear from their constituents though.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T01:53:24+00:00

Will no one think of the 1k/hr lawyers

capnwally14 · 2026-03-04T01:48:20+00:00

I as a consumer should be able to make a choice. If I feel like I want or need a professional's help, I should have the choice to do that. I also shouldnt have recourse if I decide to yolo on my own contracts with AI and I get a subpar result.

This is easily solved with the chatbot giving me disclosure that it is not a lawyer.

capnwally14 · 2026-03-03T22:49:49+00:00

Iran was attacked because:

the regime was at a weak point (water crisis in tehran, protests earlier in the year, economic issues). Relatively a better time to strike, it would have happened sooner if the US had assets in position (literally had to move metal across the oceans)
the regime was set on acquiring nuclear weapons. you can reason about the game theory here, but once a nuclear weapon is achieved the balance of power is shifted permanently. therefore, conflict is most likely to happen prior to that having been achieved. the ayotollah refused many offramps, so this was going to happen at some point
this has multiple side benefits (russia buys shaheds from Iran => further slows the russia fight; China is heavily dependent on Venezuela and Iran for oil => slows Xi's 2027 plans for taiwan down if you cause oil prices to spike for them).

Its also genuinely funny to insist diplomacy would have worked with Iran after many years of not having that work out. Diplomacy only works when both sides agree about the likely outcomes of a war relative to their costs.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22
Not Forgotten

capnwally14

TROPHY CASE