throwworhtthrow

Coincidentally, I just used hn.algolia to look up one of your old comments where you describe being sandblasted, and was surprised to find the most recent use of "sandblasted" on HN is by you, linking to an algolia search of you saying "sandblasted".

Thank you sincerely for your sacrifice, Dan. Whenever I have an urge to flame, I picture my impending comment as one more grain of sand speeding towards your cranium, and instead I step away from the keyboard.

Besides the telltale "it's not x, it's y" used repeatedly in their comment history, I also struggle to imagine what would motivate a human to type such blandly agreeable jargon-filled pablum. I'd certainly prefer not read it, even if it didn't spill out of an LLM.

Thanks for making a stink about it.

(edit: I now see you used the p-word to describe it too, and normally I'd edit my post to use a different synonym, but "pablum" really is the perfect description. I also assume you already reported this account to hn@ so I won't bug the mods a second time.)

After Renee Good was killed, I re-evaluated my opinion on Ashli Babbitt's killing and I have more sympathy for her now.

> Did you listen to the conversation?

No, and I'm sorry for derailing your point. Thank you for the additional links. I skimmed them all but didn't see anyone corroborate the claim that TSMC is limited by its upstream component suppliers, rather than its own factory underinvestment in prior years. Am I misunderstanding, and those two things are the same?

If this is actually true, I think you can find a more reliable source than Elon Musk.

I'm not saying you should never listen to a word he says. His actions shape the world after all, so it's important to understand how his words precede his behavior. But I'm baffled why anyone would take Elon at his word, or even slightly hedge their perception of reality based on Elon's claims of fact.

Tim Walz and Jacob Frey are both on record saying they'd love to have federal help with reducing violent crime.

That is not Donald Trump's / Stephen Miller's objective in Minnesota, nor is it the outcome.

Your hot takes are all wrong. Especially your last parenthetical. I mean, I'm not doubting that you may have forgotten to turn on lossless audio! But what I think you're implying, that lossless audio is clearly distinguishable from 256kbps-ish streaming audio when played over bluetooth, has not been supported by many listening tests of AAC even at much at lower bitrates.

Trump denigrates immigrants daily and stuffs them in squalid camps or prisons. Wouldn't you say that undermines the idea that he's actually acting on a moral obligation to protect immigrants from exploitative labor?

See also his brief hesitation only when his farming and hospitality CEO buddies ask him to leave some illegals for their business needs.

Everyone merges into your lane

Their old lane speeds up because many cars departed it

Everyone merges back to their old lane

You're back where you started.

A damningly weak statement by Altman. I wonder if the reason he's even opening his mouth at all is because he was left out of the MELANIA screening for all the other tech CEO's at the White House last weekend.

I do appreciate Vinod Khosla's strongly worded tweet [1] linked from the article. (But I'm still gonna write an insult to him in the sand every time I visit Martins Beach.)

[1] https://x.com/vkhosla/status/2015647215642186008

It's not credible to claim that Good got in her car that day with the intent to run over ICE and cause a mass casualty event. Her actions immediately preceding her death were 1) parking her car perpendicular to the road, rather than lining up with officers and building up speed; and 2) waving at and talking to her killer-to-be.

Whether or not her car made contact with her killer, no reasonable person would assume she had any desire to run him over. There's also no reason for anyone to believe that shooting her as she drove past prevented an imminent mass casualty attack.

So then your argument boils down to: if you brush against law enforcement with your car, even by accident, they should kill you on the spot in retaliation.

The mods (dang and tomhow) have written probably 50,000 words on the subject. I've also emailed the mods and promptly received personal replies.

Transparent as you could ever hope for: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang

It's not just Trump. Look at how even the weak Republican pushback is framed. They have no moral objection to his actions, only for the risk of blowback.

See Ted Cruz's remarks on Jimmy Kimmel: "[W]hen it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it."

Or Brett Kavanaugh on Lisa Cook: that Trump shouldn't dismiss her because "what goes around comes around [...] if there's a Democrat president".

This is the moderate Republican position: no concern for the harm caused to people on the political left, only concern that they on the right might not get away with it. The MAGA position is, as this article shows, much worse.

I don't read the plugin's source for every release, but I do check its domain allowlist.

Because I can see it is forbidden from running on any domain I'm concerned about, I consider BPC safer to run than any plugin that works for "all domains".

> Nuance is completely thrown away. People immediately dial up the rhetoric to infinity.

The lack of self-reflection in your post might be the most disturbing thing I've read in this thread.

Can you talk a bit more about situations where WHO or UNESCO have overridden a country's health system? As a US citizen I see WHO as 1) offering guidance and 2) funding programs in poorer countries' health systems.

UNESCO, well, I'm looking at its website and Wikipedia article now, and I don't understand what it does. (Or maybe it would be easier to list what it doesn't do, since even its list of sponsored institutions is mind-numbingly long.)

I agree, and maybe my "ladder pull" comment comes off as too negative. Most early solar buyers were either in it for environmental reasons or for a modest return on investment. I don't think many were expecting a windfall.

Yes, existing installations get 20 years of grandfathered rates [1].

Which makes it more of a ladder pull than a rug pull...

[1] https://www.sce.com/clean-energy-efficiency/solar-generating...

There are many topics discussed on HN that I find tiresome to read about. For example, diet and fitness topics. You could swap the comments from one article to another and not even notice.

That's why I stopped reading them.

It's never once occurred to me that I should rather open them up, dive into the comments section, and tell the participants that I'm trying to get away from boring discussions about diet and fitness.

The source for this [1] is more nuanced (someone can be both "not okay" with it while also blaming the victims), but it's true that survey respondents were five times more likely to blame the students than the National Guard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#cite_note...

Standards for "functioning democracy" were much lower then.

Most people were ineligible to vote in the 18th and 19th centuries. [1] Not even 20% of the US population voted in presidential elections until the 20th century. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Vote_for_President_a...

Ironic misuse of apostrophe's.

Presidential ads run in swing states. Not in California, whose delegates are a foregone conclusion.

Californians are hassled for political donations, not votes.

But also consider the new development with courthouse arrests, where ICE and the immigration court officials collaborate to 1) terminate an in-progress asylum case while the asylum seeker is in the courthouse, 2) arrest the asylum seeker as they exit the courtroom.

Some/many of these folks did not enter illegally and did not overstay their visa, but requested asylum at the border and were released into the US. The immigration judges are also not ruling against the asylum seeker, which would be understandable, but it seems the cases are being cut short.

I admit I don't understand the legal details, but it seems to me that this particular group of people targeted by ICE are not here against the law, and also didn't get a fair chance to complete their asylum cases.

I do approve of local police arranging the handover to ICE of convicted criminals for deportation after they've served their sentence.

Try the PBS Kids app. The shows are consistently cast with good role-model children and adults, without being preachy. Many episodes show how to resolve mistakes, frustration, and conflict in beneficial ways.

In comparison, the behavior in the kids shows from other producers (Disney, Nickelodeon, etc.) sometimes presents nasty behavior and name-calling as either inevitable, or something that's "someone else's problem": the instigator, if they're punished at all, might suffer the wrath of an authority figure, or simply bad karma.

My intent when choosing shows is not to hide the existence of bad behavior from children, but to teach them how to deal with it.

(My children also read Calvin and Hobbes. And watch those less-wholesome shows. And binge-watch MrBeast when I'm not around...)

"Snark is often conflated with cynicism, which is a troublesome misreading. Snark may speak in cynical terms about a cynical world, but it is not cynicism itself. It is a theory of cynicism.

The practice of cynicism is smarm."

From Tom Scocca's "On Smarm" essay, 2013

https://www.gawkerarchives.com/on-smarm-1476594977

Thank you for this. Count me as one more person who's been influenced by your exchange with Eisinger.

Edit: My layperson reading of the source makes me think the ProPublica article would be accurate if its link to the source had the text "which it mostly didn't" rather than "which it didn't". I don't have a problem with the article as it's written, but this is a good reminder that journalists writing for a general audience will often omit qualifiers, sacrificing accuracy for readability. (I, on the other hand, cling dearly to my qualifiers.)

It would be extremely counterproductive for a ProPublica writer to maliciously dox someone who pointed out a logical inconsistency in their writing, if the writer's intent is to bolster their own trustworthiness. Any journalist crazy enough to do this would be forever out of a job because no source would ever speak to them again.

Be specific. Which article and which citation? Otherwise this is insinuation or even slander.

Edit to add: what you've done here is defame every member of the ProPublica staff, past and present (because you don't name a particular writer or article). There is no way for anyone from ProPublica to refute this.

If you want to critique ProPublica honestly, quote a particular statement they've published.

It's wasted effort in the US, since the 2025 budget bill directs the FCC to sell off much of the 6GHz band on which WiFi 7 depends.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/trump-and-congre...