refenestrator

Conversely, American and Israeli politicians constantly talk about taking out Iran, making nukes a necessity for their self-defense.

In both cases it's mostly posturing, but killing scientists and saying we had to, it's self defense is especially disgusting to me.

It's not fricking world war 2, no matter the technicalities.

A key factor there is the word 'war'.

FYI there is as of now no evidence for genocide in Xinjiang. No mass casualties. Sterilization is a universal policy for exceeding child allotments, which were actually higher for minorities until they raised it to 3 universally.

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

That's a backwards projection. In the early 2000s we were still blithely confident that China would just slot into a world order dominated by us. The end of history and all that.

The record was that the Bush administration came in and immediately dropped the MS antitrust case because they were 'pro-business'. I suspect GWB genuinely believed in all this.

You can look up the story, it was in the fevered summer of 2020 when lots of people were trying to get other people fired for innocent boring stuff in the name of Justice.

I'm orthogonal to your points. I'm not as attached to the symbolic online battle, and I appreciate good trolling.

> It's more important exactly who is using the phrase and why, than what the phrase is.

This is thought-terminating tribal idiocy.

Let's put it in tribal terms for you. If your tribe self-owns by jumping into an obvious bear trap, that's an L for you and yours. Take some responsibility, and maybe slow down to consider the words next time.

When that phrase is used to troll people into freaking out at an innocuous phrase, and they do so, that's on them.

Teenage boys' bullying tends to be physical and a lot less socially adept, stereotypically speaking. Social media is less of an accelerant for that sort of thing.

You'd be surprised. Often that dude will have preferences that go way beyond linters and may even contradict widely accepted best practices.

I've worked with the dude who insisted on factoring out functions for unrelated 2-liners, creating extra coupling where we don't want it, the dude who insisted on mocking library code in tests when it would be easier and more thorough to just use it and make sure we're calling it right..

My favorite was the dude who, after 3 days of back and forth changes on a semi-urgent PR goes silent for a day, I ping him, he says "thinking of more comments :)" with the goddamned smiley.

Sure, but is this existential? The CoC has platitudes, too. Why is this some scary takeover?

Either air dirty laundry or don't, then. "They are super shady, trust me" is worse than both.

+1 to taking it offline when it's more than a couple minor style fixes.

90% of people are fine and code review has tons of benefits.. but the format is an enabler for 'that guy', as you're asking them for approval rather than running it by them as an FYI.

I've seen a few different motivated hard workers get to hard work on demanding as many changes as possible whenever they are on a CR.

How about dealing with "that guy" who will take you through 8 revisions until he basically wrote the PR?

I typically just identify and avoid, get reviews from other people instead.. would love to hear more advanced strats. Attempting to talk about it never works because they dig their heels in on "I'm just enforcing quality".

Cheers!

> the idea that the professionals to whom we give vast sums to be excellent at lying, cheating, stealing, killing, and betrayal - spies, in other words - should be given a sort of "Mister Magoo" benefit of the doubt when lots of people die -- that's, for me these days, the more extraordinary claim.

That's where we differ. They're Mr. Magoo with money in my opinion. How many brilliant exploits have they ever had? Even their wins are, like, "we sponsored some death squads who killed the opposition and eventually the anti-communist guy won due to having overwhelming resources".

The CIA is called 'the company' in DC and it's apparently a super-corporate environment. I've worked in corporate. It's stupid. A big part of the stupid is the local ideology, which is a multiplier effect on the general 'none of us is as dumb as all of us' effect, and I could probably go a long ways with you critiquing the CIA's default and unspoken ideology. But I still think 'organizational stupid' is such an absolute..

I'm with you on being outraged, but organizational dysfunction is the norm and not reigning it in is one way of "dropping the ball".

There wasn't, like, one single person who had all this information and he was personally stopped by the head of the CIA from telling the executive branch. It was a SNAFU of competing interests and stupid bureaucracy.

The fact that these people were promoted afterwards, however.. yeah, my blood boils.

It's very different from your frame, it's normal to them.

You and I grew up with American history and civics classes teaching an American view of things. There's context and complexities to American misdeeds. China's are presented in a vacuum, with undue focus and a touch of exaggeration.

Since you're boosting it here, do you have a link to any sort of analysis where the math works out on a land value tax?

I totally get the philosophical attraction but I just do not see how you pull trillions of dollars out of that without some crazy outcomes. Land with a financial skyscraper handling the GDP of a small nation could have a lower 'unimproved' value than an acre with really nice soil, for example.

Bride price can be a benign custom in otherwise normal marriages as long as you're not literally buying the woman. If it's accompanied with the bride's family helping outfit the spousal home, it's basically a wash and smarter than giving the money to DeBeers.

There's a 'foreign policy grownup' archetype who gets credibility for free whether they're on MSNBC or Fox News. That grownup has a default stance of American global supremacy, and China has gotten too big/rich/powerful to be compatible with that worldview.

Maybe that says more about your bias.

There's an anti-china thread on HNs front page like 3x a week. Imagine if you were an immigrant and you see that shit. Would it be infuriating?

If a comment comes from outside your frame of reference, it might sound like bad faith to you while you sound bad faith to them. The country that spent the last 20 years killing millions of Muslims really cares about Xinjiang now? Really? And if they point that out, you cry whataboutism?

Wasn't a King quote I was repudiating. He never said "you shouldn't try to do good on a foundation of injustice", because he wasn't an idiot.

They can go meta, and have all the links to justify their ratings be fake bs. Maybe the occasional rickroll.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that. I don't think she was a diversity checkbox so much as a 'small world in silicon valley' unmeritorious hire, with the diversity checkbox as maybe a small plus.

They did play it up quite a bit, I remember being annoyed at the stories of how tough she was with her in-office daycare and support staff for her newborn while other non-celebrity women I know had to order their whole lives around a pumping schedule.

After 20 years of war with colonial powers, I'm glad we can agree that it was really the Vietnamese who were the bad guys.

Deng was actually in the middle between the hardliners and reformists, from accounts I've read. He wasn't officially head of the party anymore, and there was stalemate for a few days about how to handle the protests before Deng finally weighed in with 'enough is enough'.

Yes, that's why we have the secret ballot and should keep it, but let's try to trend away from why it's necessary?