The Untold Story of the Pentagon Papers Co-Conspirators | Hacker News Reader

The Untold Story of the Pentagon Papers Co-Conspirators

newyorker.com

76 pointsdsr125 comments

Gar Alperovitz is doing some incredible and really important economic work today, supporting research into economic systems other than capitalism and state socialism. He's doing lots of research into cooperative economic structures, municipally supported public-private economies, how we could build sustainability controls into the structure of the economy, and so forth. It's fascinating work.

If you have any interest in economics at all, it's worth checking out his think tank, the Democracy Collaborative [1] which studies cooperatives (worker and otherwise) as well as supports improvements in local democratic control, and it's spin off project The Next System Project [2] which is soliciting white papers outlining new economic and social systems that aren't either capitalism or state socialism that might solve the problems inherent to both.

[1] https://democracycollaborative.org/ [2] https://thenextsystem.org/

I can’t believe I’m going to be ‘that guy’ for this post, but the word ‘co-conspirators’ hurts my eyes. Can you conspire alone? No, a conspiracy naturally involves several people. The word ‘conspirator’ is enough to identify someone in a conspiracy.

Co-conspirator is re-redundant.

Thank you for tolerating my inner pedant.

Thank you, i support this. I hadn’t noticed before but yeah, redundant.

Its mildly infuriating, like DB schemas that are named something_schema. The object is a schema so using “schema” in the name is the first step into the inferno, in my view.

I agree with the grammar as written. But when describing objects in a programming language isn't it better to add the type into the variable name? I've always found o_object, s_string, d_double to be quite common when working with ObjC examples. So often, that I assume it's best practice.

When dealing with a wall of text it's not always obvious that a schema is a schema.

I think the slightly different meaning is that it is the set of conspirators not including the conspirator you have named previously. So if I conspire with Alice and Bob in a peer based nonhierarchical fashion to make our names famous in cryptography, Alice and Bob are my co-conspirators, though we are all conspirators.

So in this headline, we are talking about people other than Ellsberg.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com