HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

atypicaluser

136 karma · joined June 21, 2011

submissionscomments
atypicaluser··on YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
> Rhetoric that led to an insurrection...

A situation that some term an 'insurrection' and others term a 'riot'. Trouble is, who's right? Who has the authority to make an objective claim on this?

For half-a-year before last week, those on the other side (the so-called insurrectionists and insurrectionist-adjacent) claimed that situations like the Minneapolis protests, the CHAZ, the Portland protests, the Chicago protests, the Atlanta protests, etc. (all together which ended in at least a couple dozen deaths and hundreds of millions in property damage) were riots and insurrections, whereas most media establishments (your NYTs and your MSNBCs) insisted these were 'mostly peaceful' protests.

Both sides agreed something was happening--they disagreed on what to call it.

In defense of the many who view the situation as a riot as opposed to an insurrection, it's hard to make the case for insurrection when (1) police waved rioters into the Capitol in places, (2) Capitol cops felt so unthreatened by the situation that they posed with rioters for selfies and (3) the Senators were similarly besieged (sans deaths) during the Kavanaugh hearings eighteen months ago... with no one (amongst Democrats) calling this an insurrection.

But, as Democrats are the victors, they will write the histories. So it goes.

atypicaluser··on Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
Those communities are dwindling in number. Increasingly, you step out of line once with the Left-leaning mindset, you are muted or banned. And these moderators will tell you to go elsewhere.

Except Google, Apple, AWS, etc. are now actively ridding the Internet of that 'elsewhere'.

Funny how just a few short years ago Google & Co. justified running Stormfront off the internet because of their extreme views. Funny how in just a few steps the justification went from 'extreme views' to 'Alex and Milo' to 'they say things we don't like'. Good luck staying amused with what comes over the next couple years.

atypicaluser··on Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store
OP writes:

> We just assume we're right.

And you follow up by proving just how right he is. First you dehumanize your political opponents--"If a rabid cougar gets loose..."--then you tell us what we need to do--"we take whatever measures we have to to get rid of it for the greater good of society."

And you claim it's the other side's speech that "is violent and damaging"?

P.S. At the time of this reply, it's not the current POTUS calling a sitting US Senator a "Goebbels". Care to guess where this is going?

atypicaluser··on Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
What's amusing is how Schneier himself falls prey to his own 'emotional thinking'--

> Emotional appeals have likewise long been a facet of political campaigns. In the 1860 US presidential election, Southern politicians and newspaper editors spread fears of what a "Black Republican" win would mean, painting horrific pictures of what the emancipation of slaves would do to the country. In the 2020 US presidential election, modern-day Republicans used Cuban Americans’ fears of socialism in ads on Spanish-language radio and messaging on social media. Because of the emotions involved, many voters believed the campaigns enough to let them influence their decisions.

... where he sets up (anchors) a reprehensible example of an emotional appeal (19th century racial bigotry) to reflect a 'reprehensible' example of modern-day emotional appeal (animosity towards a social/economic philosophy.) To reinforce his point he purposefully neglects to mention it was Southern Democrats who spread fear against 'Black Republicans' and instead uses 'Republican' twice (as a callback) to tweak the more modern-day version of that political party.

The irony of Schneier using his long-standing and influential blog to insist we 'have a serious conversation about limiting the technologies of persuasion' is not lost on this reader.

Edit--Feel free to downvote, but perhaps explain where my comment is wrong?

atypicaluser··on Ask HN: Learning about philosophy
To answer your second question first, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand started me down this path. The sheer brazenness of the title made me pick it up: what I read over the next few days broke me. Or the old me.

I've long left Rand behind, but she's a good start for a bare-knuckle punch to the teeth regarding altruism, egalitarianism and the beliefs of the political Left.

Later I picked up the usual suspects: the Greeks, the Stoics, the modern philosophers. Read the classics of the East and of India, read more modern mystics, read the pragmatists, the existentialists and the Communists. Read the economists (Adam Smith et al.) Read Popper, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Heidegger, Rawls, Kripke, Kuhn, Habermas, etc.

I guess if I were to recommend a starting point, I'd start with Book One of David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature. Be sure to heed the title of the book--it's a discussion of human nature, not of the world as-is, as-was or as-will-be. And the first book explores how we understand the world (i.e. ideas) and the limits of our understanding. Note it's a little daunting due to the older language (e.g. connexion vs connection, lots of 'tis, 'tho', 'twill, lots of apostrophe-d) and some of his arguments are initially confusing (skip and come back later,) but it will give you a firm grounding on which to consider later philosophy (and much else besides.)

After that, it won't matter too much which books you start with. If you're young, I'd recommend sticking to fiction for a while, pick up some of the old stuff (Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Dante (Inferno,) Rabelais, Cervantes, etc.) Add some new stuff, too (Camus, Tagore, Yoshikawa, Flannery O'Connor, Colson Whitehead, Colum McCann, too many to name.) Once you start hitting thirty or so is when you might pick up some philosophy. The benefit of reading the old stuff first (e.g. Aristotle's Ethics, Plato's Symposium) is that later writers reference them. Even today, were you to read about, for example, the writing craft, teachers still quote Aristotle's Poetics (e.g. all stories have a beginning, middle and end.)

As for personal philosophy, experience will shape you more, especially if/when you have kids, pay higher taxes, buy a house, suffer a sudden medical condition. But understanding the why of it--that's where the philosophers come in handy. Putting your human self--the same human self that is shared by humans from 5,000 years ago--in the context of humanity, of the human community.

(P.S. As a bonus, if you're really itching for philosophy, try out Machiavelli's The Prince as translated by Tim Parks, or for just a little philosophy to start, Rashomon and 17 Other Stories by Akutagawa, esp. "Rashomon" and "In a Bamboo Grove". Another little bit of philosophy can be found in The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov.)

* edit--typos.

atypicaluser··on Richard M. Stallman resigns
What could it be other than punishment? RMS committed no crime. What he did was offend certain people by having the audacity to speak up on behalf of his dead friend. That was his 'act.' Inconvenient enough?
atypicaluser··on Richard M. Stallman resigns
"...principles of liberty in expression and action." It amuses me that you fail to see the irony in your use of that phrase when it comes to RMS being forced to resign for what he said.
atypicaluser··on Richard M. Stallman resigns
It's a question because I'm trying to assess where the line is drawn, eg. if a person is sexist in their private life, but keeps things professional on the job, should they be punished for being sexist? You've helped draw that line, but where does the line really lay?
atypicaluser··on Richard M. Stallman resigns
Feel free to believe anyone you meet, or merely hear about, is a jerk.

The question is--should being a jerk be a fireable offense?

atypicaluser··on Richard M. Stallman resigns
So... sexism in and of itself ought to be a punishable offense?
atypicaluser··on Richard M. Stallman resigns
That's not what happened. And I doubt that any amount of apology, even if RMS was sincere, would have been sufficient--contrition is not punishment enough in today's Salem.
atypicaluser··on Richard M. Stallman resigns
Not really tech related, but... is there an age limit now on men and women having sex? Just trying to gauge the lines being drawn in this age of moral relativity.
atypicaluser··on Laws against lies: Asian governments are trying to curb fake news
Who draws the line?
atypicaluser··on People older than 65 share the most fake news, a new study finds
As could /r/politics, /r/srs and other extreme subreddits infested with bots, trolls and other societal rejects.

How unfortunate that this generation's social scientists are interested only in grinding and swinging the axe in one political direction. ;-)

atypicaluser··on The Bookish Life: How to Read and Why
You missed the point of the article entirely.

The Bookish Life--obviously this will discuss a life built around books. Yeah, yeah, anyone could guess how it would end, i.e. there's little fortune in it.

How to Read and Why--interest. Purely so. You read slow because of your interest, you read because of your interest. Just as a foodie eats a dessert slowly because of his interest, he eats because of his interest. That a book-ie and a foodie would prefer one set of books or foods over another or over all others doesn't make the person less of a lover of their books or foods. That a foodie might prefer chopsticks over silverware, fingers or tortillas doesn't make their palate any less exquisite.

Tell me--would you consider Isaac Newton and Fyoder Dostoevsky small-minded because they tended to keep their reading Euro-centric as well?

And would I be right to charge anyone who hasn't the faintest interest in the Dalit literature of India or Japan, or in Mariama Bâ's So Long a Letter, or in the depths of Borges' poetry, etc., to be merely provincial? Or am I just being smug regarding my reading habits?

I recommend you re-read the piece with a little less hostility.

atypicaluser··on Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
> all is well and good

I would say that striving to be 'all is well and good' is a never-ending chore. (As in never will end.)

> since all lobby organizations are represented in Washington.

Not all, but many. There are also many lobbying firms local to states and cities.

Can we do with less lobbying? Sure. But we'll only ever be able to go so far given that organized petitions are guaranteed by the First Amendment '... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This can take the form of a single person, a parade of protestors, a lobbying firm, or what have you. Which also means a single person with deep pockets (e.g. actor Kevin Costner) can have more sway than a lobbying outfit (e.g. a law firm representing the Lakota Sioux of the Black Hills.)

> not all of the people are represented by all of the lobby organizations.

Agreed.

I would go even further and say not all of the people are represented by those who actually vote or those who actually occupy office. Undocumented migrants, children, the mentally challenged, jailed felons, those who don't vote whatsoever—all are supposedly represented by Congress and the President, but who really gave Congress and the President the right to represent those who didn't vote for them? (Joking here—many in the US feel that Trump does NOT represent them, despite him being President. Not joking here—but are they right?)

> plutocracy

It's close. Given the lobbying arms of Planned Parenthood, the Teamsters, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Audubon Society, and many, many (, many) others, that is, the lobbying arms of well-monied groups, we see that organized groups can act as wealthy individuals. So it's a mix of plutocracy and monied non-profits.

> youtube

Good video, and it captures the big-picture problem with American political lobbying. I wish them luck with the solution they've offered—currently, marijuana laws are undergoing the same course that women's suffrage did, so it works as long as people are driven to finish what they started. (Which is not necessarily a good thing—US Prohibition also was a state matter before finally being made an Amendment, the 18th, the one that came right before giving women the right to vote. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_state .)

atypicaluser··on Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
They would prefer it as a way of lowering the cost of doing business. However, as Google has shown with Dragonfly, this attitude is likely to encourage a race to the bottom with the most oppressive regimes.
atypicaluser··on Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
The electoral college (EC) is a state system connected neither to Congress nor the Senate. Rather the EC is apportioned representatives based on the total number of Congressmen and Senators a state has. These representatives are chosen by (and vote at the behest of) the individual states according to how those states choose. All but two states require their EC representatives to vote for the Presidential candidate who won their state vote.
atypicaluser··on Leaked Google briefing, admitting a “shift towards censorship”
> their democratic system is very weak.

And with good reason, e.g. mob rule. (As an American I hope this remains so.)

> bought out by lobbyists

On all sides. Goldman Sachs has their man in Washington, as does Planned Parenthood.

> only have two parties

America has multiple parties, but two are the most ascendant. And the reason for this is more complicated than the US Constitution, e.g. writing state laws that a party must have so many members to qualify for automatic enrollment on a ballot.

> the spectrum of politics is very narrow

Americans aware of European politics view Europe much the same way, that is, even the 'far right' of Europe more or less equals the 'center left to center right' of the United States.

> less open discussion

In a sense this is true. American media companies, for example, are dominated by non-Conservatives (the 'center right to far right' of the US) and so they choose their subjects, guests, talking points, etc., from amongst those they favor, i.e. non-Conservative sources. There is much more open discussion on the Internet but, as this post shows, even Big Tech is in favor of shutting down certain (non-Progressive) viewpoints they disagree with.

atypicaluser··on Why I’m done with Chrome
> I think you, and others, seem to ignore that deep learning bots produce what the data [and the rules it uses] contains.

The bot uses data, sure, but like the humans it also--

* Chooses what data it uses based on... * The rules that make up its processing which in turn are... * Influenced by the peculiarities of its creator(s).

Those last two can't be emphasized enough. A subject matter expert, for example, will choose data differently from a layman, who will choose data differently from someone completely ignorant on the subject. Someone driven to keep certain data suppressed will choose data differently from someone driven to research the matter, who in turn will choose data differently than someone wholly disinterested in the topic. Unless a person builds a bot with a 'willingness' to question both its data and its own programming (and perhaps even its creator) to present the best linkage the web has to offer, all bots will be mere dummy proxies of the creator programming it.

atypicaluser··on PayPal ends business dealings with Alex Jones's Infowars
Well... yes. Why not? Equal protection under the law means exactly that. If you--as a government--force a business to cater to customers it doesn't like, then you need to do this to all businesses. Why else use the words 'equal protection'? Otherwise just let businesses themselves decide who they cater to (black-owned printers, PayPal, Christian bakers, etc.)

As for defending PayPal's 'free speech rights'... that's pretty rich considering PayPal seeks to make further inroads into China, a nation decidedly anti-'free speech rights.'

That's something I find strange among most respondents here--they're very quick to defend PayPal's association rights against Infowars, yet they seem all too willing to overlook PayPal's ignoring its own core values just to do business with an oppressive regime, i.e. PayPal refuses to do business with Infowars because Infowars' 'promotion of hate and discrimination runs counter to our core value of inclusion.' China is inclusive? Huh.

It certainly makes me wonder how many of YC's community are budding authoritarians working towards the day they, too, can PayPal a person out of existence?

atypicaluser··on Guccifer 2.0 Slipped Up and Revealed He Was a Russian Intelligence Officer
True enough -

> It's hard to have discussion with someone who will not acknowledge basic facts.

Let me acknowledge the article as 100% factual, and further let me concede that the New York Times (NYT) didn't leave any pertinent information (context) out or editorialize the meeting. Fair 'nuff for discussion? My next response is, 'So what?' He's free as anyone to talk as he likes to anyone he likes. Unless Congress passed a law saying otherwise... is Congress free these days to negate the First Amendment?

Let's parse your earlier statements regarding the Russian ambassador -

> Why would Trump meet with the Russian ambassador and tell him Comey is taken care of?

Where does Trump say specifically Comey is 'taken care of'? I see no such quote. I see NYT quoted him as saying 'I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.... I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off.... I'm not under investigation.' That's all of Trump's quotes in their entirety, the ones NYT thought fit to use.

As you have a hard time discussing things with people who won't accept basic facts, I have an equally hard time with people who spin so-called facts to mean there's only one plausible explanation. So to answer your question - Trump could have said what he's reported to have said because he genuinely hated Comey and was proud of getting rid of him. Or maybe he wanted to show off to the Russian officials and, like he often does, jokingly and in an off-handed way decided to state what he just did to show what a man he was. Who knows? Trump wouldn't be the first person happy to fire a guy.

Before I leave off this, take a look at what NYT itself wrote right after quoting Trump - 'The conversation... reinforces the NOTION that the president dismissed [Comey] primarily because of the bureau's investigation into possible collusion...' (Emphasis mine.) Notion. Not fact. Notion. Belief. Editorial. The fact is Trump dismissed Comey. The fact is Trump took no small amount of glee in it. The fact is, whatever Trump's feelings, as President he had every right to fire Comey. If he smiled when he told the Russians what he did, eh, again, so what? As far as I'm aware, that indicates Trump's a jerk, not that he's breaking a law or colluding with anyone.

Moving on -

> And do this secretly?

If the meeting was recorded and reported on, it's not much of a secret. Besides, I can give at least one good reason why he WOULD want to keep this meeting a secret - because there are folks who will interpret such a meeting in the worst. Possible. Light.

Ahem. Moving on -

> Why would Trump have an insult for every US ally and not a single bad word about Russia?

Mmm, as far as I know Trump's buddies with Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel's a US ally. I don't recall any insults, but I don't pay much attention to newspapers these days, so there's a chance one's slipped past me. Nor do I recall insults to the prime minsters of Japan and South Korea. But, again, newspapers.

You did ask for a single bad word about Russia, yes? And I provided, yes? I can't help that you move the goal posts.

Then again, I am told I have trouble with basic facts.

P.S. Downvote me, but please explain why.

atypicaluser··on Guccifer 2.0 Slipped Up and Revealed He Was a Russian Intelligence Officer
"Irresponsible." March 5-6, 2018. Trump's comment to Theresa May over Putin's boast regarding nuclear weapons.

Anywho...

I'm tryin' hard not to roll my eyes as I write this, but here goes -

Like everything Trump does, his discussions with Russia are all about Trump. He's probably not just looking at the here and now, but also at his post-Presidency. He is a businessman after all. (Hell, Trump tried landing property deals in Russia BEFORE he'd ever considered running, sooo...)

I'm unsure that Trump told any Russian that 'Comey is taken care of,' but then, I'm skeptical of many things and, in this case, I consider this rabbit hole a waste of time.

For future reference, you'll need more than you've proffered here to convince me (and others) Trump deserves the outrage others have spilled onto this thread considering -

* Had the election gone for Clinton, no one would be tearing after her for all the good turns she did Russia in the Uranium One deal (and this is all-on-the-record-and-verifiable stuff,) and

* Russia ain't the only country trying to influence American elections. China? Israel? Saudi Arabia? The UK? Please name me a major country that ISN'T trying to influence American politics. You really think Russia had more influence this past election than an Australian owning Fox or a Mexican owning the New York Times? That Russian hackery was more influential than non-citizens voting in California? Piffle.

Considering the context, there is no there there, dude/tte.

atypicaluser··on Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them
My initial reaction to reading this - 'Hey old people, just die already!'

A more considered reaction - shouldn't you at least offer 'older folks' an incentive to give up their lives other than 'it'd be better for society'? I'll be one of these older folks in a few years, and were I to stay in my house into my dotage, I'm three minutes away by car from the emergency room, less than a minute from several groceries, coffee shops, barbers, laundries, parks, etc., ensconced in a building (a future coffin?) whose wiring, plumbing, masonry, landscaping, etc., are all known to me. Please feel free to enlighten this middle-aged goat on why he should be put out to pasture to give room to 'new homeowners.'

atypicaluser··on Yacob and Amo: African precursors to Enlightenment thinkers
> Why isn't it just a good thing that Ethiopia had a part to play in the development of civilization as well?

Did Ethiopia have a part to play in the development of Western thought? Given his own final question, that seems to be the supposition of the author of the article - '... one might wonder: will Yacob and Amo also one day be elevated to the position they deserve among the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment?' But Herbjørnsrud (the author) gives no evidence that either Yacob or Ano influenced European thinking any more than Locke's et al.'s contemporaries. (Quick - before looking them up in the Wikipedia - who was Christian Wolff? Francis Hutcheson? Nicolas Malebranche?) What evidence Herbjørnsrud presents indicates Yacob died in obscurity, unknown to Europeans, and Ano was at best '... one of the most prominent Wolffians.' [See Christian Wolff above.] Yet the author wants to immediately set these two among the luminaries (e.g. Kant) of European thinking.

Is Herbjørnsrud trying to push an Afrocentric narrative? He discusses only two African thinkers in his article, so it's easy to see why the OP might conclude this, but setting that aside, it seems Herbjørnsrud at minimum wants to promote certain Progressive principles, e.g. 'Neither was Amo alone in bringing /diversity/ or /cosmopolitanism/ to the University of Halle in the 1720s and ’30s.' [Emphasis mine.] While this is neither good nor bad, ignoring the undercurrent of Herbjørnsrud's article does nobody favors. (Of course, he wrote, _Global Knowledge: Renaissance for a New Enlightenment_, so what should we expect of Herbjørnsrud?)

atypicaluser··on Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
Not all of us will argue to the contrary. On the other hand, expect no sympathy when the powers-that-be decide to knock your favorite site(s) off the grid because they haven't passed the (next fashionable) purity test. You've no leg to stand on.
atypicaluser··on Convincing people takes time
Your reply misses the point of the OP:

> ... physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

How many Americans actually self-identify with the alt-right? Less than .001%?

How many, on the other hand, are accused of being alt-right to dismiss their arguments and concerns?

If your first move in a potential discussion is to label your opponent with a philosophy you hate (and refuse to entertain,) then it's likely you're interested in things other than discussion.

atypicaluser··on Donald Trump is the president-elect of the U.S.
Keeping Muslims out of the US (banning Muslim immigration to the US) != deportation. You may disagree with Trump, but please don't put words in his mouth.
atypicaluser··on [dead]
Three comments -

(0) Nice setup of the sane and compassionate versus... Trump supporters? Who cannot in any way be sane or compassionate...

(1) If Trump supporters must be fought and excluded from any sort of decision-making that affects the public sphere, then why bring up US Democracy? The very nature of democracy allows the dangerous, the racist and the sexist to affect it. Are you suggesting something else?

(2) While I might criticize the five silos you toss Trump supporters into, I wonder more whether you'd find a Sanders revolution abhorrent. Not that all revolutions have been as bloody or as horrid as the French - are you saying the American Revolution was a terrible thing for the world? Certainly the Brits might think so. ;-)

atypicaluser··on The “Sharing Economy” Is the Problem
> The age of filling a 50k+ person factory with uneducated workers is over.

Very honest.

> Our society is moving towards post-ownership.

Now how a bit more honesty?

What you really mean to say is our society is moving towards an ownership by the few (shareholders, CEOs, boards) who will indenture everyone else through blah-as-a-Service. The code is owned, the capital is owned, the apartments are owned. It's a joyous model... so long as you're on the right side of the ownership line.

← PreviousPage 2 of 3Next →