forapurpose

> the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS?

"Other than the POTUS" seems to brazenly ignore the significance. For example, it would be absurd to ask, 'When Trump took office, what changed from Obama other than the POTUS'?

When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. Obama had opposed the Iraq war from the start and promised to withdraw, which he did (though the withdrawal was also required by the agreement Bush made with Iraq). Obama also wanted out of Afghanistan and, after a policy review, set a timeline for it (a criticized decision that was later changed).

> both sides are wrong

This is true "political correctness" (a term that I think is almost always misused). The odds of both sides begin equivalent seem slim; it's not at all unlikely that of two parties, one would be significantly worse than the other. It's sort of like looking at two software programs and saying 'both have bugs'; sure, but that's meaningless - it's not at all surprising when one is much superior to the other.

But people like to be even-handed, out of some misguided (IMHO) view of fairness or not wanting to offend. But the stakes are too high; you wouldn't say that if you were choosing between airplane autopilot programs. In this case, if you make the worse choice then it can result in catastrophic climate change, nuclear proliferation, war, mass oppression, the undermining of democracy and liberty, and more.

It's supposed to work that way for oil futures, but I'm not sure 'justice futures' are a good thing. People have a right to be made whole; their need, and the justice system's unreliability and delay in delivering it, shouldn't be exploited by people with deeper pockets, IMHO; not everything should be priced on the market. It could become (or be) another way the poor or non-wealthy are excluded from justice and are practically denied their rights.

Adding to your quote and to your point, the next sentence in the article also is important:

The office has sold at least one property since Krasner took office ...

My understanding is that the reporter could find only one property sold by the current DA.

Important context: A recent batch of city DA's in the U.S. (I know Krasner is one of them but I can't name others off the top of my head) are revolutionizing urban law enforcement. Krasner, for example, is a civil rights attorney who won the DA office on a progressive platform, which IIRC is not dissimilar to the others. It's a revolution, as I said, and of course that means that many vested interests have lost power and many other people will be uncomfortable with the change. There are targets on the DA's backs.

That doesn't mean these DA's shouldn't face scrutiny (they absolutely should), that they can't do things wrong, or that they can't be corrupt. But the context is an important part of this story.

> Many of these are not actually economically leftist or antiwar, and the ones that were have moved toward more of a centrist neoliberal position in recent years.

Which ones?

First I want to say, great graphic on the article, with the RSS sails.

Related: A study by a leading U.S. defense think tank on intense, active warfare, on the part of China and Russia, in the political realm:

https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/countering-comp...

The Chinese and Russian governments are currently waging political warfare against the United States and its allies. Although efforts to manipulate public opinion and political debate often receive less attention than armed interventions or military modernization programs, Beijing and Moscow are embarked upon campaigns to suppress dissent, discourage foreign narratives they oppose, generate support for policies they favor, keep their rivals distracted, and mitigate pushback against overt acts of aggression. To date, these efforts appear to be having success.

> foreign propaganda has some utility. I don't trust Chinese or Russian state media to report on internal Chinese/Russian affairs honestly, but they can provide a worthwhile counter narrative to the West on certain international issues

A bit bizarre, to attempt to legitimize lies and manipulation, but I guess I'm not surprised to see that kind of comment these days.

Authoritarian governments' interest in manipulating foreign audiences is as strong as their interest in manipulating domestic audiences. The article describes massive Chinese investment in it, and Russia's investment in it is well known; as we know, both operate even on the micro-level, such as on social media and in Internet forums. In the comment below I linked to a study that describes it as a massive and effective campaign "political warfare":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18638027

Lies are not a counter-narrative; they don't improve your understanding; they are just lies.

Very well covered by Fox and endless far right blogs and other publications ... I can't imagine there's been a time in history when more content of that sort was available.

> Outside of small scale independent journalists who are always at the risk of getting de-platformed, non-NATO/petrodollar-aligned foreign news are the only place I can find Americans talking about American stances like leftism (in the economic sense), anti-war, etc.

The good news is that there are many opportunities in the U.S. and West: The New York Review of Books, London Review of Books, The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, Tom Paine, Democracy Now, and many more. The Guardian generally supports those positions too; Le Monde does, last I knew, as well as Der Spiegel. You could read that kind of thing all day and never run out of content.

For those wondering what this is about, it was published in 1992 at the direction of the U.S. Attorney General at the time, William Barr, who is now the presumed nominee to return to that position.

Via one ISP, "Firefox can't find the server at www.ncjrs.gov." Via another ISP, the link timed out, then worked 5 minutes later.

> the residence halls vary pretty widely in price, and so the factor that really decides where you live is how much you can afford

What affect does that have on the social environment? Are there status differences based on residence hall, for example? Is it racially segregated like many cities are (partly as a result of economic segregation)?

It's interesting to compare your school to many U.S. cities, which are trying to reduce economic segregation[0] - your school seems to codify it. Why not at least mix larger and smaller rooms in the same dorms?

[0] See this article on a major policy shift in Minneapolis, for example:

https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family...

> it is just a different system

Different in the same way that Windows 3.1 is "just a different system" than MacOS X 10.14. The U.S. pays 2-3 times as much, and does not provide healthcare to vast numbers of people. Many who do receive health care go bankrupt paying for it; many who think they have insurance find that they are denied it by insurance companies.

Microsoft would have to consider the long term: What will Chromium and Gecko/Firefox look like in 5 and 10 years? Which is more likely to provide the technology that Microsoft expects to need? Microsoft can't just switch engines every couple of years. Some back-of-the-napkin analysis:

* Vendor stability is one issue: While I doubt Mozilla will go out of business, Google clearly is a very safe bet.

* Which vendor will invest more in keeping the technology up to date? Google, due to its vast resources, seems like a safe bet to invest more money and engineer hours. Mozilla, however, will certainly make the web browser the center of its attention and top priority; Google has a lot on its plate (and Microsoft knows how browser tech can drift for years without top management attention).

* Which browser is most likely to maintain compatibility with websites and web apps, including corporate ones? Google is the obvious choice.

* Which vendor's engineering priorities most align with Microsoft's? I'm not sure. Google has their own priorities - a front end for Google's services, which compete directly with many of Microsoft's - but Google seems more focused on the corporate market. On the other hand, Mozilla's focus on privacy and end user control could easily conflict with Microsoft's priorities.

* And of course, which browser fits best in Microsoft's immediate browser plans and has the cleanest upgrade path from Edge/IE? I have no idea.

I'm a dedicated user and supporter of Firefox and Mozilla, but I can see reasons Microsoft might choose Chromium.

I think you make good points, but I wouldn't assume that the current U.S. political situation will persist. The right wing in the U.S. didn't assume that and acted to change the formerly more centrist situation to a more polarized one, and from a more active government to a now radically inactive one.

> There's far less contention regarding the scope and design of those things.

There is less contention now, when they are mature solutions deployed decades ago. I expect that the situation was much different at the time they were proposed.

> A lot of criticism from anonymous sources. ... if they don't like the direction their company is taking, they can quit and find another job.

I don't understand what you mean. The sources that agree with your position are also anonymous - the article depicted three sides to the debate, and all are represented by anonymous sources:

Internally, the conflict seems to have divided Facebook into three camps: those loyal to Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg; those who see the current scandals as proof of a larger corporate meltdown; and a group who see the entire narrative — including the portrayal of the company’s hiring of communications consulting firm Definers Public Affairs — as examples of biased media attacks.

> More likely just phones without access to facebook's internal corporate network ...

Do you know that or is it just a guess?

I'm not sure what you mean. We collectively built the roads, for example, and the guard rails and road signs; it's hardly impossible.

> A fully loaded truck moving at highway speed needs a lot of space to stop, at least 150 to 200 meters, and the long-range lidars now available can’t sense things in sufficient detail that far ahead. ...

> Reliability is also limited. I mentioned that we use components that are automotive grade, that we’re certain will work over the lifetime of our vehicles, in all the various conditions we require. Lidar isn’t there yet.

That makes me think how inefficient it is for every vehicle to carry its own lidar, radar, etc. Why not pay once for high-quality sensors built into the highway infrastructure, and have them feed data to passing vehicles. It would solve the lidar range problem, among other things.

One obvious challenge would be that smaller roads would not be outfitted with the sensors. Perhaps automated driving would be disabled in that case.

> Uber, however, warned that the bill will “lead to higher than necessary fare increases”

Whenever their expenses increase, companies like to imply and threaten that they will pass along the increase to consumers. But that is deceptive: Some of the expenses are paid for out of the company's profits and some via increased prices; the proportion of each depends on the company's choices, on the economics of price elasticity, and on other things.

Another way of looking at it: If the company's expenses go down, do consumers get a price cut or does the company announce larger profits?

I didn't say the things you disagree with, but I'll address your points:

> not doing business with any non-democratic countries

That would be a pretty extreme measure; I don't think anyone, or anyone respected, is calling for it. Another drawback to disengaging completely is that you lose future leverage; it's a punishment, in a way, but once it's done then you have no more relationship with the other party. 'I'm taking my ball and going home' is very amateur diplomacy.

> The U.S. should serve as an inspirational example as it did in the past but we can't be nation builders and all-out imperialists.

The choice of the U.S. isn't all or nothing - be purely "inspirational" or be "all-out imperialists". The U.S.'s soft power - the inspiration - was very potent until Trump, and to a smaller degree GW Bush, said democracy and human rights weren't a priority. It still could be revived to a significant degree. But there are other solutions, including the following:

* Intervene in ways that are efficient and effective. The U.S. can't help every country, and many interventions are ineffective. But lots of research and experience show what works in which scenarios.

* Support international law and norms that pressure regimes in the right direction. The UN in general plays a major role. The Responsibility to Protect, for example, was developed after Rwanda's massacres in the 1990s and, generally speaking, requires each government to protect the welfare of its citizens (rather than massacre them) and says the government is illegitimate otherwise. The International Criminal Court holds political leaders legally responsible for crimes (though I don't know that the U.S. officially supports it).

* Support mechanisms that provide stability, such as the World Bank (which supports infrastructure and other needs) and the International Monetary Fund (which loans governments money to prevent bankruptcies).

Aside from the much more important core issues in the article, I found this bit interesting:

> Because of those sweepingly invasive capabilities, Israel classifies the spyware as a weapon. The company must obtain approval from the Defense Ministry for its sale to foreign governments.

Does the U.S. use such classification for spyware and similar tools? What are the standards which determine whether or not it's a weapon?

> We can't go to war ...

There are many, many methods of leverage short of war. International relations happens all the time between every country on earth; only a tiny number of those interactions involves violence. In fact, a primary job of the people who practice international relations is to get things done without risking wars - sort of like doctors whose job is to get things done without killing the patient.

> some guy who wasn't even our citizen, killed in Turkey, by a foreign government

Human rights are widely considered to be universal, both in philosophy and in law. The U.S.'s own Declaration of Independence says 'all men are created equal ...'; it doesn't say 'all Americans'. Also, it's widely believed that if you let human rights deteriorate elsewhere, you are creating more risk for yourself. If your next door neighbor doesn't have freedom, there are many reasons to think you might be next. Finally, free, democratic countries tend to be much better partners on the world stage - they tend to be peaceful, stable, and prosperous.

Finally, Khashoggi was a journalist, which implicates a specific human right, freedom of the press.

> Can you imagine being a software engineer and being okay with getting rich by developing technology to out dissidents and have them murdered by some of the most oppressive governments on earth?

It's a great question. Sadly, people have been making money on such things since the first tools were invented. Think about all the weapons manufacturers, for example. Think of the oppressors, killer, and torturers that rule and that serve the regimes - are they a different species than software engineers?

But the question is, why? What leads people to do it? I don't buy simplistic answers such as, 'they don't care'.

Look up Mike Kaply's blog; he covers it extensively and, AFAIK, knows the topic as well as anyone.

Thanks. Where can I find out the credentials of who wrote that answer? Also, as I asked before, how do I know where this theory fits in the domain of accepted theories?

> It has very high standards for answers (as you can see several times a day when a the mods nuke an entire thread for not being good enough):

I'll point out that this practice indicates nothing about the quality; it depends on the mods and not on the quality. If the mods' taste happens to correlate with quality, only then would it result in higher quality comments. For example, mods in a forum that promotes conspiracy theories might also delete threads that don't match their definition of 'quality'.

I'm a little concerned that the parent comment might represent a Reddit theory of accuracy, quality and scholarship, but not the real thing.

Are you Indonesian?

Who is the author? Is this accurate? Is it one guy's theory, a fringe theory, one of competing mainstream theories, or consensus?

Certainly Reddit and the comment's length are not indicators of accuracy. They are indicators of an author with a lot of time and motivation, which could be good or bad.

Thanks. I'll add the Washington Post's database of police shootings throughout the U.S.:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police...

How does a reader know that these statements are accurate and others are the misunderstandings or misrepresentations? Are you a pharmacologist? A fentanyl user?