Not everybody has time or needs to understand how these chips function. I don't need to know how a CPU functions to write python.

Yeah how dare he suggest you improve yourself or learn more about the thing you seem to be interested in operating. I could understand if we were on a website about technology and curiosity, but this is just hacker news.

Why are you responding as if that was an attack? Not everyone needs to know every intricate detail of a system to use it. Nor should they.

That type of thinking is like saying unless you can cook a gourmet restaurant quality meal you don't deserve to eat at a gourmet restaurant. Absurd.

I predict the AI enabled MCU development wave will lift all ships.

AI has absolutely crushed the barrier to entry for using this gear. It's a spectacular turn of events and I suspect sales have never been better, if my own behavior is any indication.

Arduino ships an STM32 which is really feature rich btw.

I really can't get over how many things in life do not require an OS but people used them anyways because it's easier to develop on.

>AI has absolutely crushed the barrier to entry for using this gear

Sure, now people can make more frequent dangerous assumptions with twice the overconfidence. =3

This is obviously a factually incorrect post as anybody who uses the product can attest

Yes and don't forget consumer preferences. This is Hacker News where they are still clamoring for a "small smartphone" because everything else is too big. Shocker, small phones don't sell. Neither do bulky ones when compared to sleek iPhones.

The dreaded Wile E Coyote attack, the bane of every commuter's existence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APY-spLNvHI puddle might do it tho

This year's winner of the nobel prize is highly organized and ran a parallel election campaign, which was obviously dismissed by the Maduro regime. There is a slim possibility of a peaceful transition given the democratic efforts underway in Venezuela for many years at this point.

POTUS just said she's not involved, won't be involved, doesn't have the support necessary to lead. Who does? Unclear. His plan appears to be: "oil companies come in, sell the oil" and I'm seriously not exaggerating.

> His plan appears to be: "oil companies come in, sell the oil"

In terms of nation-building, it's not the worst plan. See Carville's "It's the economy, stupid."

Popular support of any government is mostly (a) quality of life & (b) individual freedom. Quality of life is directly correlated to the economy and public finances.

If someone can quickly boost Venezuelan oil production, and therefore state revenue, then all sorts of social funding programs become feasible.

The issue with autocracies is that they selectively enrich key supporter groups (internal police, military) at the expense of others (wider population).

If you can substantially boost public revenue, then you don't have to make a tradeoff -- everyone gets more!

And there are certainly worse beginnings for new governments.

(All of this ignoring the flagrant violation of international law, international ramifications vis-a-vis Taiwan, climate change, etc.)

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I’m saying it appears to be the entire idea, which makes it a bad one.

He was asked “who will govern” and “when will there be elections” and “will there be boots on the ground” over and over.

His answers were “I don’t know”.

Well, Trump is probably the least qualified person in the administration to ask that question of, while at the same time no one wanted to risk contradicting his fancies on recorded television.

A bad look, but I seriously doubt the state department doesn't have some sort of plan for continuity of government.

Especially since, in critical difference with post-Hussein Iraq, no one in this administration seems ideologically opposed to working with the old guard, if they put on new colors.

Would be very surprised if the remaining elements of the government aren't put in temporary charge with guidelines (no killing protestors, freeing political prisoners, monitored elections on X date, etc.), then things are left business as usual.

With additional strikes if anyone tries to buck the system.

But higher placed members of corrupt regimes tend to be pretty pragmatic about their own skins when the winds shift, so I'd be surprised if anyone goes to the mat for a leader who's already been extradited.

You can inject as many assumptions as you wish.

Right now the evidence is as I’ve stated it.

"It appears to be the only idea" is a bit strong.

'It's the only information about the plan presented in the last 15 hours' would be better.

Nah, it's really not "a bit strong."

The President of the United States has stated over and over now that there is no transition plan. There is no successor. There is no plan for elections.

This isn't "he hasn't been asked" or "he has declined to comment." He has said affirmatively there is no plan.

So either he's lying or there's no plan.

In either case, my presentation is correct, and your assumptions are completely unfounded.

Trump's Reaganesque in Reagan's weaknesses, without any of his strengths. Except maybe charisma to some people.

At this point in his second administration, I'm firmly convinced that the bulk of the details aren't communicated to him and/or he forgets them.

Big decisions? Sure, he makes yes/no. But "Let me hear the plan for day x+1?" In what universe would the Trump we've seen ask that question? We're talking about the McDonald's guy.

So you've said:

> I'm firmly convinced that the bulk of the details aren't communicated to him and/or he forgets them.

But at the same time:

> time no one wanted to risk contradicting his fancies on recorded television.

So they're making plans, but they won't actually commit to any of the plans because in the end the plans are meaningless and Trump is going to push for whatever he wants at the moment. Doesn't that make the actual plans practically worthless?

That seems like an accurate appraisal of the last year.

Sometimes Trump doesn't decide to veer off-script and scupper plans. But it happens more than never!

And rarely, when he does, more informed heads are able to turn him back around. E.g. the bullshit 'Ukraine tried to assassinate Putin' scheme

Under the hood here you're assuming Trump is (largely) incompetent to lead but surrounded by people who 1) know that and 2) are competent themselves.

A scarier possibility, which I think is actually far better evidenced, is that he's surrounded by people who largely believe he's competent (because it's a cult) and who are themselves not competent at all.

I think the people around him believe (1) he's competent to win the popularity contest that is an election & (2) he's vengeful against any perceived disloyalty.

There are probably some true-believers among his cabinet, but most of those are evidenced by their paper-thin CVs and lack of their own power-bases (Hegseth, Bondi, Rollins, Chavez-DeRemer, Turner, McMahon, Noem, Zeldin, Loeffler).

>In terms of nation-building, it's not the worst plan.

Building which nation? The despotic dictatorship of USA one would have to assume you mean. The profits are no more likely to go to Venezuela's further development than they are to bring in universal health care in USA.

QoL is nothing if it is bought through the pain and suffering of others.

I don't know why you think this is a new beginning, it's just extension of USA's dictatorship to ensure even more people suffer and the USA oligarchy gets even more insanely wealthy.

I don't think it has dawned on the HN crowd how insatiable the demand for dollars across the world is. This stuff is being used in all corners of the world, and accelerating.

As of 2025, USD stablecoins are a regulated industry. The frequency of uninformed comments like these will asymptotically go to zero.

> As of 2025, USD stablecoins are a regulated industry. The frequency of uninformed comments like these will asymptotically go to zero.

You didn't answer the audit question, which is really important.

Right, but Tether doesn't comply with the law at all. So...

I mean they might, maybe. But you can't point to the law as proof of something when the thing you're defending doesn't follow the law.

That sounds like a perpetual motion machine that the US can get addicted to and then come apart once stable coins suddenly become price sensitive.

Or, an alternative, and hear me out, maybe this could also be called "an economy"

Confidence in crypto will go poof when there's a big enough run that the measly 7 transactions per second can't keep up with demand. We just haven't seen a crypto bank run yet. The $100 / transaction is nothing compared to what it could be. When that happens "stable" coins will lose their stability and the smoke and mirrors behind audit-free coins will collapse. You couldn't pay me to hold crypto.