[2003]. I don't see how a description of the problem from 20 years ago, with a proposed solution much different than what is being done at the moment, has any relation to what I said.
I agree that the looting of much of our industrial base was a terrible thing to let happen. That doesn't mean applying a solution that would have been appropriate decades ago will have the same effect now that the horses have long ago left the barn. It's merely setting us up for the next trend by which we will be sold off.
That's because no one can make that conclusion definitively yet. They want your brain to assume that connection. Conspiracy theorists are the kings at this psychological trick.
> That's because no one can make that conclusion definitively yet.
There's a problem here though: if things do eventually deteriorate (which, admittedly, there is a change will not happen), it may be too late to fix things.
If things get broken they are broken, and in this case you have risk of people's lives. And the people who did the jobs that were fired have probably moved on because they have bills to pay. If you can realize your mistake quickly enough, you can fix it quickly. This is what happened when the Very Stable Geniuses fired the folks who maintained US nuclear weapons:
Perhaps instead of l33t h4ck3rz in DOGE they should hire carpenters or woodworkers: people who, instead of a mantra of "move fast and break things", live more by "measure twice and cut once". Some measure of where the (alleged) waste is could be useful before cutting.
I agree that DOGE is bad. But I also think it's unhelpful to claim evidence of a bad outcome directly caused by what they've done. It muddies the water and bolsters people who want to argue that people are only criticizing them out of bias.
If it's true that they got all the tornado warnings out because they were able to be "all hands on deck" for a night they knew would have high risk, then I think this just isn't the example of DOGE getting people killed that the article wants it to be.
I fully believe that understaffing these offices could get people killed. But we don't need to claim it did until it does.
And that doesn't mean we should wait for something awful to happen to criticize the risky situation!
That's mostly the thing with safety measurements. If they are there you do not recognize them and if they are missing and something happens it's hard to proof if it would have changed anything.
The internet wildly speculating would probably get back to my mom and sister which would really upset them. Once I’m gone my beliefs/causes wouldn’t be more important than my family’s happiness.
True, which is what a notary is for. You could encrypt the data to be leaked at a notary, with the private key split using shamir's shared secret among your beloved ones (usually relatives). If all agree, they can review and decide to release the whistleblower's data.
This statement confused me, but according to Wikipedia the job description of a notary is different in different parts of the world. If you live in a “common law” system (IE at one point it was part of the British Empire), it is unlikely that a notary would do anything like what you are saying.
I’ll never forget after de Gaulle ordered all American soldiers out of France, US Sec of State Dean Rusk retorted “Does your order include the bodies of American soldiers in France's cemeteries?"
People always interested and fascinated by the algorithm whenever it comes up. Dang makes the (correct) assertion that people will much more easily game it if they know the intricacies. PG always churlishly jumps in to say there’s nothing interesting about it and any discussion of it is boring.
Pretty asinine response but I work in Hollywood and each studio lot has public tours giving anyone that wants a glimpse behind the curtain. On my shows, we’ve even allowed those people to get off the studio golf cart to peek inside at our active set. Even answering questions they have about what they see which sometimes explains Hollywood trickery.
I’m sure there’s tons of young programmers that would love to see and understand how such a long-lasting great community like this one persists.
I dunno. This is standard practice for things like SEO algos to try to slow down spammers, or risk algos to slow down scammers.
HN drives a boatload of traffic, so getting on the front page has economic value. That means there are 100% people out there who will abuse a published ranking system to spam us.
wait long enough and the other product will be able to expose the secrets.
future gpt prompt : "Take 200000 random comments and threads from hacker news, look at how they rank over time and make assumptions about how the moderation staff may be affecting what you consume. Precisely consider the threads or comments which have risque topics regarding politics or society or projects that are closely related to Hacker News moderation staff or Y Combinator affiliates."
It's not sacrilege, it's just that people rarely have any basis for saying this beyond just it kind of feels that way based on one or maybe two datapoints, and feeliness really doesn't count. We take real abuse seriously and I've personally put hundreds (feels like thousands) of hours into that problem over many years - but there has to be some sort of data to go on.
