First find a similar site doing what you do. In one prompt, copy and paste their license, terms, and privacy into GPT. Copy your program description and other info (like you want to copyright your text, you want creative common and commercial aspects) into GPT. Tell GPT that you gave it an example license, terms, and privacy but you want the three modified for your particular use case. Press Enter. Modify the results slightly. Profit.
It removes youtube ads and all other ads, which I care about more than all of the listed issues and hacker news number 1 issue of it having a crypto wallet.
238,000 trackers and ads blocked, 6.19 GB bandwidth saved, 3.3 hours saved on my new tab stats
I suppose the Paradox of Tolerance gives you blanket permission to be violent against anyone who fails to meet your exact political litmus test? Indeed, Popper’s warning about tolerating the intolerant was intended to guard against existential threats to a pluralistic society, not to license indiscriminate hostility. By extending the label of “intolerant” to encompass nearly all Republican or conservative positions, you transform the paradox into a broad justification for suppressing any viewpoint you oppose.
Moreover, while it is undeniably true that significant social and political progress has required great effort and, in some cases, profound sacrifice, it does not follow that we must now treat all dissenting views as immediate dangers warranting violent reprisal. If anything, the most effective way to preserve the foundations of liberal civil society, such as robust public education, fair labor laws, and equitable treatment for all, is to engage in an open, if sometimes messy, democratic process, rather than to endorse sweeping forms of retribution.
When we equate every policy disagreement with an existential threat, we risk undermining the very civil discourse we claim to protect. Therefore, invoking the Paradox of Tolerance to rationalize violence is far removed from Popper’s original intention and, taken to its extreme, contradicts the core values of a tolerant and inclusive society.
I have observed a growing tendency for some individuals on the left to cite Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance” in ways that misrepresent its original intent, effectively suggesting that any stance short of full-throated radical leftism should be deemed fascistic. This reinterpretation goes beyond Popper’s caution about tolerating genuinely intolerant ideologies, instead using his argument as a blanket justification for shutting down or even endorsing violence against those deemed insufficiently progressive.
Last week a moderator on University of Oregon's subreddit was banned for pinning a message endorsing violence against conservatives on campus.
Objecting to a more powerful person normalizing genocidal behavior is anything but “soft”.
The more powerful person expressing that power to cause harm (economically in this case) to the person objecting to them is not something I would categorize as “soft”, but weak in mind. They have demonstrated that the smallest pushback causes them to react.
Anger and the reactions it causes are allowing someone else to control you.
Musk has shown how to control him in specific ways, therefore he is less of an intelligent being than a reactive one.
Elon is the archetype of American ideals, not a shadow of Nazism. He's fundamentally redefining industries with SpaceX and Tesla, pushing forward on fronts like renewable energy and space travel. That's the embodiment of the American spirit; innovation, pushing human limits, creating jobs, and boosting the economy. State control and suppression are core to Nazi ideology, rather Elon is expanding what's possible for all of humanity. It’s misguided to mix up his contributions with those dark chapters of history. What he’s building is in line with the most cherished American values: freedom, progress, and bold individualism.
It has nothing to do with US Citizens. According to estimates from the Pew Research Center and the Center for Migration Studies, roughly 250,000 to 400,000 children are born each year in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, virtually all of whom receive citizenship at birth under the 14th Amendment. The underlying issue is the exploitation of a legal loophole that currently incentivizes unlawful entry and exploitation.
It's not a loophole, it's the plain text of a constitutional amendment. More or less all sources that provide context for what they might have meant support the plain reading.
> Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
Thus, even without the 14th Amendment at least some of those 250,000 to 400,000 children born each year in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants - the white ones - would still be US citizens, barring a law otherwise. And there has been no law otherwise, because of the 14th.
If you want to say the loophole is that non-white US-born children of foreign citizens mistakenly got a right that was only meant to apply to former slaves, then go ahead and say that.
But we can read the discussion in Congress at the time and see they were well aware that it applied to more than ex-slaves. From https://web.archive.org/web/20210114215253/https://memory.lo... and the following page we see Mr. Cowan ask for clarification about the text, as it applies to foreigners:
> Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? ... is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not.
> The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
Oh man, he goes on to point out how all the recent talk about Gypsies, when they are so few in number, cannot be but to cause political agitation, then referring to actions of "our "southern brethren", who I will not say invaded California" were there as "road agents" (but actually highway robbers), and California hanged them as California did not recognize the commission of Jefferson Davis within their borders.
In any case, the evidence is quite clear that this "loophole" was fully discussed and understood as a goal of the amendment.
That is why Mr. Conness, an abolitionist and advocate for Chinese immigration, advocated for its passage.
Nope. This "loophole" nonsense is naught but political agitation.
So you’re arguing that birthright citizenship isn’t a loophole because lawmakers in the 1800s discussed it? Great, but we’re in 2025, not 1868. A lot of U.S. citizens today don’t agree with handing out citizenship to 250,000–400,000 kids of undocumented immigrants every year, and pretending this debate was settled forever ignores reality. The Constitution is a living document, not a museum piece. If you’re looking for “agitation,” maybe start with the side clinging to 19th-century logic to justify modern mass migration.
VOIPThrowaway's comment was all about the intent behind the amendment. Part of the intent may have been to "make sure Democrats couldn't say that former slaves weren't citizens" but the legislative history clearly shows that wasn't the only reason.
How else would you demonstrate what their intent was, if citing primary evidence is off-limits?
I'm arguing it's not a loophole because that's how US law works, and has worked for not just the last 250 years, but in the common law that we inherited from England. I provided citation to show that legal history, so you can double-check me.
If you don't like the way the law works, well, use the 18th-century logic embedded in the Constitution to repeal the amendment, like how the 21st repealed the 18th. Make new state and federal laws to invalidate the relevant common law, which would still exist after the repeal.
Don't just make up interpretations because you don't like reality.
Sounds like a few hundred thousand children of undocumented immigrants becoming US Citizens every year is perfectly okay with you. Reality would say though that it has become an extreme loophole that current non-citizens are using to get their children into America as US Citizens. Times have changed!
> Statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of undocumented immigrants are having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents is their goal.[29] According to PolitiFact, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years ...
> Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status; as such, according to PolitFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship for the parents is "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."
So I imagine you think these people are all coming to the US to have babies, then, what, leaving them here? As orphans? Can you point to the orphan numbers?
Or going home to raise the kid so that 18 years later the now-adult kid will move to the US - a country that's mostly foreign to them, with little support network?
Where are your numbers that this is an actual problem?
How does it compare to the devastating failures of the US health care system and parasite that is the insurance industry?
How does it compare the destruction of the social safety network caused by decades of tax cuts for the wealthy?
You failed in the past election and Trump became president because millions of people disagree with your narrative, no matter how long of a report on hacker news that you write!
No long report this time? You never changed my mind so all your words failed. You might want to work on increasing your argument ability or you waste your own time. Nothing you said convinces anyone that there is not a loophole in 2025.
Trump got a little less than half of the vote, which means millions of people also agreed with it.
I mean... Trump won in 2016 despite millions more people voting for Hillary Clinton.
When Republicans win, they claim a sweeping mandate from the masses and declare themselves harbingers of a widespread cultural repudiation of progressivism and leftism (even when they lose the popular vote) and when they lose they just claim the other side cheated and everyone agrees with them anyway.
You can certainly argue that the Democrats failed to inspire and move the left whereas Trump succeeded with the right, although Trumpists seem to be regretting it more each day. This isn't a political conflict between rural and urban, left and right (there is no actual left in the US outside of social media) or even proles vs elites, but between establishment elites and outsider elites - and Trump represents the former, and Elon the latter.
But you can't rationally argue that Trump's success is due to an overwhelming repudiation of leftism from the masses. You will regardless, ad nauseum, because you're a Trump and Elon stooge. But the math just doesn't math.
Can you quote the text that supports your claim from the linked 'source'?
What I did find there was:
This report’s estimates and projections of foreign-born residents in the U.S. comprise both legal and unauthorized immigrants. However, the numbers for each status group are not broken out separately except where stated.
( ~ 4 million per annum, now fallen to 3.5 million per annum )
Births were to foreign-born mothers (2000 - 2022)
In 2000, 21 percent of births were to foreign-born mothers, according to data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. This number has fluctuated slightly throughout the years, peaking at 25 percent in 2006. It decreased to 21 percent in 2021 before increasing to 24 percent in 2023.
It's important to note that this data does not differentiate between illegal and legal foreign-born mothers and includes mothers from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Both sets of my grandparents came to the U.S. from Europe (France and Belgium) just before WW II. They did not become citizens. My father and mother were born in the U.S. and lived here all their lives. I was born in the U.S. and have also lived here all of my life.
Am I a U.S. citizen? If so, what proof can I provide that doesn't rely on the "loophole"?
This is what I did.