I've watched them all repeatedly. It's clear she was blocked in at the front, trying to pull out, and yielded, waving the ICE vehicles to go around front.
They instead got out, needlessly attempted to drag her from her vehicle, and she freaked out and tried to GTFO by turning right to avoid hitting any of them. She was shot and killed for it.
One thing that I, and many others, have issue with is the fact that the agents are masked, which makes it hard to hold specific actors accountable. With the way they've been deploying facial recognition against citizens, I feel like using it against ICE agents would just be sousveillance.
Especially with the second video, it seems like there should be enough footage of the guy's face to figure it out. Ideally her relatives could then SUE, but qualified immunity is some powerful bullshit. At the very least, maybe we could track bad actors. Does the guy regularly use unnecessary force?
The counter argument is "if you DOX people, especially unpopular people, they'll be subject to death threats, possible violence, etc. and you'll be partially responsible", but man, it's obvious that the agency itself isn't holding its people accountable. I'd want to know if he was in my city, still performing ICE activities.
Ideally a lawsuit? The only sane outcome of this in a civilized society is that the perpetrator stands trial for murder.
If that does not happen the already slim distinction between US law enforcement and a paramilitary execution squad loyal to the president will have dissappeared entirely.
Oh yeah, absolutely! I should have said that instead, but I'm so pessimistic about the courts charging LEOs with crimes that I kinda just skipped that option by default
Even if there is a perceived slim chance of success I still think charges should be brought forward. At the very least it might make some of these psychopaths hesitate to do the same. Maybe. And while they are at it maybe an investigation that produces names on who ordered these guys to act so brazen.
If you cant nail the guy who did this go after those who are above in rank. Maybe there's a "paper trail" on giving orders to do such thing?
People have to fight back or this lady definitely wont be the last.
Holy shit why didn't they play the middle video they legit murdered that girl and when they saw what happend they ran away. The gull, they are legit law enforcement running away from the problem they just created every dude back off instead of trying to help that lady after what happened.
Edit: Context here because they are literally doing a pincer move on this lady's car all wearing masks and with at least 1 gun drawn. All issuing different commends backup, get out, this is way hiring amateurs off the street to play cop is a bad idea. Trained people don't esclate this way
Edit2: She definite hits the cop before he shots but where is that 5'th video of the lady right up in the pincer cop's face. She's video taping him
In regards to edit 2, she does not hit the cop. You can see him literally wait until she's out of reverse while hovering his hand on his sidearm, putting himself in the front of the car - so that ANY movement from her after leaving reverse would result in shooting her.
Watch the distant video she bumps him he fires. I'd argue his gun seems drawn before he's hit which would make me panic and gas it. Regardless though these thugs just shouldn't have been there, ultimately that would be saving lives.
Why would I watch the obfuscated view? Watch it up close and on the side closest to the so-called "hit" cop - as you say (and silently edited out to "bump"):
Watch the one titled "LEFT-full-duration". Watch it in slow motion. Everything in my GP is correct:
1.) The lady reversed to make room to drive away AFTER conflicting orders to "get out of there" and to "get out of the car";
2.) An ICE agent got in front of her car mid-reverse and hovered for his sidearm;
3.) The lady gets out of reverse and turns her wheels to face to the right, the ICE agent is now middle-left of her car, and commits to drawing his weapon;
4.) Lady commits to her right turn and didn't hit the cop, as evidenced by the fact that he was literally out of the way, he didn't lose footing, and most of all - he was able to shoot the driver at point-black from the driver's side window. If the car was aimed for him - let alone if he was hit, it would have been physically impossible for ANY of those to occur on their own AND ESPECIALLY in combination - most of all, the point-blank shot from the driver's side window.
The agent who fired NEEDS to be tried for murder, simple as.
I don't think murder charges will deter anything at this point. I don't know anything about US laws, but these activities deserve to be charged with and treated as acts of terrorism. At least the foreign nations need to start designating and sanctioning ICE as a state-sponsored terrorist organization involved in criminal activities including criminal intimidation, arbitrary detention, kidnapping, child abuse, hostage taking, human trafficking and murder. Their known leadetship and agents should be captured and tried at Hague if they step outside the US. Deal with them the same as Gestapo.
100% I think it is ridiclous what happened and that ICE being law enforce is expected to have training on more than I see I shoot training. They dishonor any trained law enforcement and if they want to have no standard they are simply thugs on the street
- That she was in fear for her life (smiling and laughing about it 10 seconds beforehand, gleefully pulling away with excitement like it's a video game)
I'm glad we have this footage to see the truth now.
Has anyone seen vid of the lead-up? Everything I've seen is clipped to several seconds before the shots are fired. It doesn't justify the outcome but one of the narratives I've seen is she had been blocking the agents for some time.
It's de facto legal if you'll get away with it. Lon Horiuchi executed (sniped from a distance) an innocent woman holding a child at Ruby Ridge over what was ultimately a missed court date for a crime her husband was acquitted of. He was then promoted and went on to take part in Waco.
When he was prosecuted, the feds played jurisdiction games fucking with the case until the case was so cold it was difficult to prosecute.
The U.S. Attorney filed a notice of removal of the case to federal court, which automatically took effect under the statute for removal jurisdiction[11] where the case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge on May 14, 1998, who cited the supremacy clause of the Constitution which grants immunity to federal officers acting in the scope of their employment.[6]
The decision to dismiss the charges was reversed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, which held that enough uncertainty about the facts of the case existed for Horiuchi to stand trial on state manslaughter charges.[6] Ultimately, the then-sitting Boundary County prosecutor, Brett Benson, who had defeated Woodbury in the 2000 election, decided to drop the charges, because he felt it was unlikely the state could prove the case and too much time had passed.
Quite the contrary, in such an environment it is even more important to figure out what is de facto legal because you cannot count on reading the law to determine such.
She wasn't blocking at all. Please watch the video. In one of them a car passes in front of her without trouble. It's a 2 lane 1 way road, she's only in 1 lane.
It does not. Even if what you speculated was true that is not a capital crime, and that 'officer' (I use the word lightly) is not judge, jury and executioner.
Are you really suggesting that an armed federal law enforcement officer doesn’t have the ability to detain someone that they suspect is interfering with one of their operations?
You might want to cite some case law here supporting that assertion. They may not be able to charge someone with a traffic infraction but can they detain someone? Absolutely.
> Are you really suggesting that an armed federal law enforcement officer doesn’t have the ability to detain someone that they suspect is interfering with one of their operations?
Well, gosh. It's a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure I was taught in school that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Something like that, anyway.
To be blunt: your assertion is batshit. NO, the cops can't just "detain" people on random "suspicion" of "interference". They need probable cause to suspect a crime in progress. Period. There are no exceptions. There never have been. If you want to argue that they clearly have the ability, you need to explain why that car in its perfectly legal travel lane was somehow a criminal violation. You seem extraordinarily inclined to split hairs on the other side of this argument, so it seems... odd that you're being so cavalier on this one.
No, ICE can't detain anyone on a "traffic infraction". No one can. That's not criminal, and you know it.
More to the point, obviously, sure: there are gray areas where cops stop teenagers to see if they run or smell like weed or whatever, and they can get away with it. They don't then proceed to shoot their suspects in the fucking face. Seriously? How are we possibly even having this discussion. There's no universe in which this is acceptable law enforcement practice.
Yes, the fourth amendment exists. Yes, law enforcement officers can detain you if they’d have reasonable suspicion of a crime you have committed, or about to commit.
(That last bit I italicized you might want to read again, because it’s pretty important and you left that part out and it is the cornerstone to everything in this incident and specifically what I articulated in the comment of mine you replied to).
What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in this thread, surely you'd like the opportunity here.
The ability of people on the right to throw all their principles about limited government and checks and balances and constitutional restraint out the window the second the person who got shot in their face is a political enemy is just amazing to me. You people are the ones who think we all need guns all the time to PREVENT this kind of thing, I thought!
> What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in this thread, surely you'd like the opportunity here.
That’s up to the agents to articulate and the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to evaluate.
The fact is that law enforcement are able to legally detain people under certain conditions and those conditions do not need to be adjudicated in the moment of detainment. It can come later, and the LEOs can be held responsible if they violated someone’s rights. People on here commenting otherwise either misunderstand the law, or are intentionally providing misinformation to manipulate people and create outrage.
> That’s up to the agents to articulate and the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to evaluate.
Which will never happen, because the suspect is a faceless (literally) body in a morgue. You're just dodging. Because, and be honest with yourself: you want this to have happened. You want your enemies to be afraid of the (again, literal) secret police wandering the streets in pursuit of your personal political goals. And if the price for that is a few unconstitutional executions, you're willing to pay it and excuse it on the internet.
But you don't really believe this was legitimate law enforcement behavior. No one does. Real civil societies don't accept summary executions of probably-asshole probably-protesters who probably-obstruct visa check operations.
You are ascribing a hell of a lot of motivation to me just for stating common and frankly well known facts about whether or not LEOs can detain people.
If you don’t like the way the law works, do something to change it, don’t just pontificate on the internet because you are upset.
I ask again: what crime do you think she was being detained to prevent? I'm inferring your motivation from your refusal to engage on the subject you claim to be debating.
ICE has had a press conference and explained why their agents approached the car and wanted to detain that driver. They are claiming obstruction of their operations (18 U.S.C. § 111). It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think, only what they thought and what the subsequent other evidence substantiates either validating their claim or not and what a potential jury might decide on the subject.
I’ve explained elsewhere on this HN thread what I observed from the videos we have all seen by now and why I think it will be difficult to waive the qualified immunity of the officer to pursue criminal charges against him. This particular spur of the thread is about whether or not law enforcement can detain people. They have the force and capability to detain, and they have case law that allows it.
Whatever ICE claims, the murderer broke protocol and whatever excuse they’ll try, surely “feared for his life” doesn’t count.
Operating manuals state that officers cannot use deadly force to stop a vehicle, even if the vehicle itself is used as a weapon, if they can get out of its way instead.
This is clearly a case of an untrained, unhinged, far-right militant, itching for an opportunity to fire and kill a “fucking bitch” (seems ICE is leaving the indefensible idiot out to dry, and prepared the ground by releasing the video from the murderer’s phone).
The preemptive "It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think" tells us that you know damn well this wasn't legal or appropriate. I stand by my analysis, you are defending this madness on the internet not because you know it's correct on principle but because you want it to be correct.
You want to live in a world where your enemies are afraid of gestapo-like goon squads who will shoot them in the face if they do the wrong thing. You think they deserve it, that the work of the goons is important and worth some violence to enable, and surely that such violence would never be used inappropriately.
Just be clear in your own mind what you're cheering for. It's not new. Historically this never ends at plausibly-justified-minutiae about law enforcement practice.
It doesn't matter to the current conversation and it feels more like you're trying to create a distraction from the core of the issue being discussed than inquiring in good faith. If you truly desire such information so adamantly, you can easily do a search for it elsewhere without derailing the discussion here.
False narrative here. Watch the full length videos. This does not show what happened leading up to the issue. This lady was protesting ICE and physically driving her car into police officers. She refused multiple police orders, then attempted to murder a police officer with her car. She was justifiably shot in self defense.
Shooting the driver of a car that's driving at you is not self defense. Cars don't instantly stop if the driver is incapacitated. You'll likely make the situation even worse because the incapacitated driver's foot will press the accelerator down (exactly what happened here). If your actual intent is to defend yourself the only move that makes any sense is to get out of the way.
There is a zoomed in and slowed down video circulating that shows after the driver was told to exit the vehicle that they reversed the vehicle first and then placed the car into drive (when the LEO was directly in front of her car). The driver hit the accelerator hard enough that the tires spun before they finally gained traction and moved the vehicle forward towards the officer. The velocity in which the vehicle began moving before the shots were fired and ultimately slammed into the other vehicles seems to show that the accelerator was not gently pressed by the driver.
Did she panic? Was she given conflicting commands? That is unknown, but the actions of the vehicle itself are consistent with the driver pressing the accelerator to quickly move the vehicle forward when the LEO was directly in front of it.
The circumstances of the overall situation and the position of the vehicle before it was confronted and moved are consistent with someone attempting to block traffic on that street with their vehicle. The actions of the driver are consistent with someone attempting to evade.
If you watch the close up video from the 7 o’clock angle, you can clearly see that the tires don’t spin out by looking at the speed of the rims. Furthermore, imagine yourself in a situation where an aggressive, masked, armored, and armed person is trying to pull your door open while screaming in your face. You’re in full fight or flight mode, tunnel vision, scared, and confused. At this same time, unbeknownst to the driver, another agent had circled around counterclockwise behind the rear of the vehicle, up the right side in the vehicle’s blind spot, and across the front of the vehicle. Driver is still focused on the other ICE agent trying to yank her door open. Driver decides on the flight option, as obviously fight would be insane, and tries to leave the scene. Driver clearly turns to the right, trying to AVOID the agent that had crept around to the front while her back was turned. The driver isn’t a person with a violent criminal past and felony warrant. There is absolutely no reason for this level of aggression, corralling tactics, or escalation of force. This is not an appropriate way for law enforcement to interact with civilians in any sane society. The shooter immediately draws his weapon at the first sign of vehicle movement, while also placing his body at a 45° angle to the front corner of the vehicle. As the driver attempts to turn away at a relatively slow speed, the shooter brings weapon up, pushing shooting stance forward into the vehicle, even though he has an easy step away from the vehicles path. Even if he did get bumped by the vehicle, by the time the first shot is fired, he’s already positioned to the side of front quarter panel, out of the vehicles path (you can clearly see this not only in the video, but also in photos of the angle and placement of the bullet hole in the windshield). The threat of serious bodily injury or death is literally already passed, yet the shooter fires two more rounds point blank through the driver’s side window. It is after these final two rounds are fired that the vehicle actually accelerates. I speculate that the driver was likely already dead or incapacitated at this point, and lack of motor control caused weight of their leg to push into accelerator. It doesn’t matter if this person was protesting ICE, or blocking traffic. This is not justified self defense (the threat of death or serious bodily injury had already passed), there was no threat to anyone else, and this is not an appropriate way for law enforcement to interact with general civilian population. At a minimum this is a reckless disregard for public safety, manslaughter, and lack of professional discipline.
I'd add that since, as ICE claims, Ms. Good had already been non-violently interacting with them, they had the opportunity to note the license plate and, if they felt criminal charges for obstructing their operations were appropriate, they could just go to her (nearby) house and arrest her later.
There was absolutely no reason for the attempt to pull her out of her car, and even less for escalation to use deadly force and, IIUC, DOJ guidelines and DHS policies[1] back that up.
This was an execution, not a law enforcement officer "defending" himself. That the decision was made in the heat of the moment doesn't make it any less an execution.
What's more, shooting peaceful protestors (cf. First Amendment[0]) is illegal on its face:
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.*"
Well... it was said for a long time that Trump could execute someone on broadway and nobody would bat an eye, in fact that they would defend him. This effectively is precisely that, there is ample evidence that this was a cold blooded execution and yet there are plenty of people that are defending it. It's going to be a very interesting job for historians to look at this era to try to figure out how we collectively managed to go this far off the rails. We have no excuse either, the Germans at least could claim they didn't know (even if plenty of them did, it must have been true for some of them). For everybody with an internet connection that is not true.
Edit: this was a reddit link, but the post was deleted. If you zoom in and slowly scrub the video in the google drive you'll see the same thing though.
Clearly shows that, at the moment the officer fires, he is not in front of the vehicle at all. He actually moves FURTHER toward the vehicle and leans over the hood in order to get a better shot. The angle Trump tweeted of course makes it seem like she rammed him, but this is the better angle to see the timing. She reverses and cuts it hard right, and he has to lean TOWARD her vehicle.
- Officer at driver side window, reaches into vehicle while simultaneously trying to open the door (I cannot fathom why an officer would be reaching in the vehicle and attempting to open the door if he was giving the driver an order to move the vehicle, but perhaps there would be a reason for this). At this time the vehicle is moving backward, its tires turned to the left shifting the front of the vehicle to the right. The shooting officer comes into view but appears to be stationary. (This suggests that he was probably on the front right of the vehicle before the vehicle reversed). The reversing movement of the vehicle orients its front end to line up with him in front of the vehicle.
- Shooting officer is in front of the car just left of center of the hood when vehicle starts moving forward
- Vehicle tires spin before gaining traction and they are facing forward. The officer is directly in front of the vehicle at this moment
- Vehicle tires are straight towards the officer until after he unholsters his firearm, only at that point does the vehicle wheels start turning towards the right. Also at this point the vehicle begins moving towards the right and the officer begins moving towards his right (to avoid being hit).
- Officer is still at the front left corner of the vehicle when shooting but nearly clear. He is at an angle where it is possible for him to shoot through the windshield at the driver, his body dodges further to the right as he is firing his weapon. Additional shot appears to have been fired after he was cleared of the immediate danger.
The ex-FBI agent and police officer I've seen online said you don't stand in front of vehicle, and you don't execute someone for trying to leave the scene. When she backed up she was already turning to get parallel with the road when she went forward. The onlookers who were interviewed thought it was unjustified.
The administration told several lies. First that an officer was in the hospital because they were run over and fired in self defense. Then they said ICE was stuck in the snow and the woman was an agitator who weaponized her vehicle to go after them. Neither of these are true. This has often been the case with ICE incidents.
You do not back up if you plan to run someone over. You go forward right through them.
The person in front of her vehicle moved himself there, as she was backing up, in violation of training/procedure. Qualified immunity doesn't protect you if you aren't actually doing your job, and your job is to follow training/procedure.
Edit because throttled: They are trained/procedure dictates that they do not stand in front of vehicles. He had plenty of time as she backed up to get into proper/safe/required position. The officer is the professional in this situation and it is them who are obligated to follow required procedure, not the random mom (with a glove box full of her kids stuffed animals) that turned down the wrong street when an ICE action was taking place who is being yelled at to both move her car and get out of her car by armed agents who approached her vehicle.
You will have also see how she was waving cars past, she was not obstructing/blocking, the officer that shot her is whose car was blocking traffic, including her.
In addition, ICE is on video driving much more aggressively into civilians in front of/next to them. Are you saying that the ICE officers should be charged with attempted murder for that driving? That civilians would be justified in firing rounds into ICE vehicles in self defense in those situations and should not face criminal consequences were they to start responding as ICE did here?
In the video they shout contradictory directions for her to move move move and also shout for her to get out of the vehicle.
Doesn't look like that at all to me. He wasn't hit, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to stay standing whilst shooting her in the head multiple times. Shooting her in the head made no sense anyway because of course once you're dead you just accelerate. Nothing about what he did made any sense nor was appropriate. She was clearly just trying to escape.
Lon Horiuchi was charged with sniping an innocent woman holding a baby but I'll admit he wasn't convicted.
So it's totally possible the murderer gets locked up for a few years while facing trial and then released. Which would be at least a couple years sentence since murder trials take 1-2 years to prepare and you get basically no compensation for time spent imprisoned awaiting trial.
Again, “murder” is charge that requires conviction. People keep using it here when its not appropriate to do so. I realize they are caught up in the emotion and not viewing things pragmatically. I am trying to provide a window to let people see that this is probably not black and white.
I am not claiming that this officer did not cause the death of this woman. I am suggesting that because of LEOs having qualified immunity, this being a situation that happened very quickly, and that there are real questions about how this happened and why, that there is a high legal bar to overcome when analyzing it.
It’s going to be legally murky and that alone will make it very difficult to waive the immunity.
It is absolutely murder, and hair-splitting on definitions is famously the first line of defense of people who are 100% guilty and they know it.
Your claim about murder is bad and wrong on the same level as "I did not have sexual relations with 'that woman'." Stop language policing people and actually think about what has happened. This was an extrajudicial killing of a US Citizen by the US Government. That should scare anyone, but instead you're in all of the comments trying to split hairs about "how things would play out in a court of law." No one cares how things would play out in court, because no one trusts the US legal system to carry out justice. So it doesn't matter.
What matters is that this is murder and the US Justice system is about to start doing cartwheels to try and defend a system that is so clearly backwards and corrupt because the current POTUS administration has given up on "law and order" in favor of a grab for absolute power.
'The Redcoats were never prosecuted for the events in Boston. We can't refer to it as the Boston Massacre. Why are you even upset? The people in Boston FAFO and this is what happens'.
No, you do not get to tone police the word "murder" from everyone rightfully outraged with an above-it-all appeal to "impartial" but narrow legal definitions. We all know the legal system has been thoroughly corrupted, and there is the good chance this murderer will not actually be criminally charged and convicted of any types of legally-defined murder. This does not matter - in the eyes of We The People this is fucking Murder.
And the emotion here most certainly matters - this is an American mother, being gunned down in broad daylight, by chickenshit masked gangs who don't have an ounce of respect for the citizens of this country they're claiming to serve. And then an administration and its state media mouthpieces, instead of taking a moment to step back and reevaluate and try to prevent this from happening again, doubles down on nonsense narratives about how this American mother deserved to be summarily executed - full-throated support for the murderer. Anybody with half a brain that isn't caught in an info bubble of reactionary propaganda should be fucking angry.
> will not actually be criminally charged and convicted of any types of legally-defined murder.
Yes, that is my point. What you consider a corrupt legal system, I call one that tries to protect people who are accused of a crime until they are proven guilty. It’s not “guilty until proven innocent”…its the other way around.
> This does not matter - in the eyes of We The People this is fucking Murder. And the emotion here most certainly matters
Well, I guess the mob has spoken then and that is what is important—not law, not civility, only anger and anarchy. Good luck with that world you want to create, one day that lawless mob will come for you. Maybe you were deserve their brand of justice, or maybe not.
The general point is that there is a wider definition of "murder" than merely what the legal system has defined and proven. It's perfectly sensible to call someone a "murderer" before it has been diligently proven in a court of law. Especially when there are multiple videos of that person executing an American mother, and the restraint to not go after singled-out named people is already being exercised implicitly, as the murderer was wearing a mask.
But really, "lawless mob" and "anarchy" ? The larger push is that people's widespread outrage is needed to drive strong action by our institutions that still remain mostly intact (eg state governments) to get these masked terror squads out of our cities. These masked terror squads are precisely your "lawless mob" engaging in anarcho-tyranny, emboldened and legitimized by a con artist (now "president") who promised them contradictory-everything, but really just naked autocratic power red in tooth and claw.
We need to stop both-sidesing this, period. I get it - I'm a libertarian who was both-sidesing up through June of 2020. But really, stop. Pretending to somehow be above this just undermines support for taking action to defend our country.
Here is the reality, The actions Trump is taking regarding immigration enforcement are definitely consistent with the platform he ran on. None of this should be a shock to anyone. It’s not like Trump was an “unknown quantity”. Trump was still elected despite every thing we knew about him, how he managed the country, and what he wanted to do. I did not vote for him (not ever). I suspect many folks here did not vote for him, but plenty of people did vote for him, more than enough to get him elected and for congress to stay GOP controlled.
Our political system worked exactly as designed, the person and party that America wanted is running the country. The checks and balances are still in place too. It’s just that those checks and balances are largely in agreement with Trump at this time. America wanted and deserves exactly what it has right now.
Our overall republic is also working as designed, our states via our elected representatives have made immigration a federal issue. If states want that control given back, then it needs to be taken back in the same way it was given—via Congress. That’s how this shit works. We know from history what happens when states decide to take a different approach. Frankly, that is uglier and more dangerous than what we have now.
The nice thing is, we also have a chance to upend congress a bit this year. If America decides to do that, good for it. If it doesn’t, then you know where its mood still is. The good thing is he is definitely gone in 2028. At that point America again will give us clues to where its mood is by who it chooses to elect into leadership.
First, this has very little to do with any sort of mandate for immigration enforcement. Immigration is being used as a pretext to deploy revanchist terror squads that are attacking all of civil society, as we've seen with the murder of this American citizen mother. And yes, people should have seen this coming when they voted for him. But this is not what he openly campaigned on at all.
Second, winning an election does not imply a mandate to ignore the Constitution and act as a dictator. Nor does Congress and the Supreme Court abdicating their Constitutional duties in favor of enabling an autocrat running roughshod over our Constitutional rights with impunity mean that the Constitution is being followed "as designed".
But lastly, and this is really the only point I am asking you to agree with - if you think the only way we can put a firm stop to this is wait to Congressionally check the fascists in November, then surely you can agree that labeling this regime as unrepentant murderers of American mothers is a good way of building broad opposition from people who might otherwise think it doesn't concern them, yes?
> Then surely you can agree that labeling this regime as unrepentant murderers of American mothers is a good way of building broad opposition from people who might otherwise think it doesn't concern them, yes?
No. In fact I think jumping to conclusions, exaggerating, trying to use a tragedy to your advantage, obfuscation, and outright lying to try and manipulate public sentiment is perhaps the WORST way to try and move that needle.
Because what happens is what is happening now, more and more information trickles out and when that some of that info runs contrary to your narrative, people realize you have been trying to manipulate them and you lose your credibility. It creates reasonable doubt to all accounts about the situation and people simply reject it as evidence of anything.
We have seen first hand what the “don’t trust your lying eyes” approach has achieved…it’s achieved a second Trump administration.
Someone was murdered with plenty of video footage, it's reasonable to form some preliminary conclusions.
As you're appealing to a general concept of restraint, I presume you have much harsher criticism for the administration, which immediately dropped into pushing bald faced lies [0] and rejecting responsibility for the situation rather than taking even a moment to assess? Would you care to share that criticism here?
The flip side of this refrain of "don't trust your lying eyes" is outright lying by this administration "supported" by narrow video clips that don't tell the whole story. Like a clip of "stop" and the victim trying to drive away is pretty convincing, if you're not shown the other clip where another violent attacker was yelling "move move move".
[0] The basic known facts here are that ICE electively confronted and escalated a situation with an American citizen, did not follow their own mandate or rules of engagement, the woman was shot repeatedly, and then a nearby doctor tried to render emergency aid and was prevented from doing so, correct?
There is no more need for me to comment on this any further save this: As I predicted, additional footage is now emerging that is showing her actions well prior to the shooting, people coming out who knew her and are describing her connections to activism and affiliations to the media and investigators, and the very words of the woman’s partner as to what they were doing right after the incident on site were recorded. All of this will ultimately contribute into the overall legal analysis into this incident.
Edit:
Also, the ICE agent who shot her POV video in realtime of the incident has just been released and it includes the interaction with the the driver and what appears to be the driver’s partner.
Would you care to point at anything specific in these actions that show either one of them physically impeding or otherwise violently aggressing on ICE?
> people coming out who knew her and are describing her connections to activism and affiliations
... because what I'm seeing is a lot of handwaving and innueno.
> the very words of the woman’s partner as to what they were doing
Once again, care to quote anything specific?
I've always been one to go to primary sources, but I haven't seen the need to give this regime the benefit of the doubt since I combed through all those fake legal claims that Trump filed to support his "stolen election" hoax. I guess I'm going to have to break down and just watch this woman be executed over and over to see for myself. But I'd also think if there were facts here that demonstrated she was the initial physical aggressor (as opposed to inconveniently engaging in Constitutionally-protected observation, filming, and heckling), they could be stated quite plainly!
> I guess I'm going to have to break down and just watch this woman be executed over and over to see for myself.
Just like a jury will have to do should this come to trial. The act of judging someone for a crime often means you have to see all the evidence in detail even when it’s disturbing and difficult.
Sorry for continuing to make the judgement that I'd rather spend several more hours of quality time with my son than using that time to come down from the stress of seeing a woman be assaulted and executed again and again from many different angles. I guess I'm just not cut out to be "MAGA" material.
But I do have jury duty a few months from now, and if it requires me to do a similar thing then I will rise to the challenge for my civic duty. I have become quite conservative - supporting our remaining institutions of law and order is especially important in these days of rampant criminality by all three branches of the federal government.
If you want to make your case here, I have asked you two straightforward questions that you have so far thus avoided:
1. Would you care to describe anything specific shown by these videos where either Renee or her wife physically impede or otherwise violently aggress on ICE? (before their escalation into a high-stakes assault on her vehicle. also keep in mind this would be the beginning of forming a logical argument and that the principle of equity between those actions and the response still applies)
2. As you've been appealing to a general concept of restraining judgement, I presume you have much harsher criticism for the administration - as supposed leadership for the country, they immediately dropped into pushing bald faced lies and rejecting all responsibility rather than taking even a moment to examine, reflect, and work to prevent further tragedies regardless of fault. Would you care to share your own criticism here?
I think there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE. The driver ignored direct orders to exit the vehicle and chose to flee instead. Her act of fleeing created a dangerous situation where a law enforcement officer had to make a split second decision and still was physically struck by the vehicle. I think it’s up to investigators, prosecutors, judge, and jury to decide if action against the agent is appropriate understanding all of the evidence surrounding the incident. We have had the benefit of days of analysis with slowed down video from multiple vantage points. That officer had 2 seconds mere moments after being directly antagonized by one of the people from the vehicle.
The inconvenient truth here is that the constitution EXPECTS the executive branch to enforce the laws that congress passes. ICE is enforcing laws that America wanted and passed in a bipartisan manner many years ago. If we the people don’t like a law, we the people should undo it the way we originally “did” it…via congress.
I have never voted for Trump. I don’t like many of the things he does and says. I can be critical of the Trump messaging and rhetoric (including around this situation, which like the outraged—-is filled with excessive emotion and a rush to judgement). At the same time I can be supportive of the constitutional requirement to enforce our laws, because I don’t want to live in a lawless anarchy.
'The mob at the Boston Massacre were the ones in the wrong, good luck with your ungovernable new country'.
Fuck that un-American bullshit. The Redcoats that murdered those people in Boston way back when is what led to a free America because the MURDERERS were in the wrong. Learn some fucking American history/civics.
You want to abuse civility/civilization/rule of law into protection for the government extra-judicially murdering Americans in the street. Nah, fuck that. We got it right in Boston. Your deferring to authoritarianism because 'rule of law' is bullshit and anti a free people/nation/government of/for the people.
Can you point to me the part where she was interfering with their enforcement and duties? Because she was literally letting them pass, they chose to get out of their car and make her their problem. If you believe 'enforcing valid laws' means deliberately antagonizing people so that you can shoot them then you're already far gone. You just believe the law is a post-hoc rationalization for murder by the state.
> Can you point to me the part where she was interfering with their enforcement and duties?
So is it perfectly normal for a civilian vehicle to just be blocking a street at a 90 degree angle during an active ICE operation where there are other protestors present?
“Deliberately antagonizing” might be an explanation, perhaps “unintentional but poorly timed three point turn” is another. Either way, it’s interfering with the operation.
> You just believe the law is a post-hoc rationalization for murder by the state
No, I believe that Pierson v. Ray allows law enforcement the ability to be shielded from certain laws if the legality of the action is unclear or if it’s a reasonable human response within the circumstances. I don’t agree with it (as I said and you of course ignored). However that’s the law and it was an 8-1 SCOTUS decision…so it’s unlikely to change.
Your position is stopping (when an ice vehicle is blocking the road) is impeding their work and abnormal and that driving through is attempted murder. WTF is wrong with you? Heads you go to prison, tails you die. WTF?
The person who murdered her's unmarked vehicle was blocking the road so she stopped before going into the oncoming lane.
If you drive down a random street and there is a random truck in the middle, and lots of government officers, would you stop, or just drive through them without assessing the situation? Should you be killed if, in that situation, you stop instead of what, ramming through the truck blocking the road?
If a cop car is blocking the road, and there are cops standing around, should I just swerve around the cop car without slowing down, stopping to make sure it's safe to pass? If I stop to assess if I should pass in the oncoming lane, should I be murdered? Arresting for impeding the cop?
The MAGA world in a nutshell: they will find a way to justify anything at all, including murder at point blank range because the alternative would require them to admit fractional responsibility for the outcome and that's the one thing they really can not do.
I don't think you're just describing it, you're making it fit your narrative. There is no way she was trying to ram that officer, everyone knows it. He had walked in front of the car as she was reversing - why? He could at any point have stepped to the side and just let her escape, and if she'd done something wrong, the normal thing happens, she gets arrested, prosecuted if guilty and sentenced accordingly.
Instead, he chose to draw his weapon and kill her.
What the fuck is wrong with people defending this?
She was literally just driving down the street where there was an ice operation. The government employee that murdered her had the road blocked with his vehicle. She had to stop or drive into the oncoming lane. Traffic rules and basic safety state you stop, then proceed if safe into the oncoming lane. She waves a car to go in front of her to go before she does. She was then shouted at by agents that APPROACHED HER VEHICLE shouting 'move move move'. She then moved and was murdered.
That is what 'If you want to avoid the tragedies, avoid the situations where they can arise' refers to. Driving down a street in America. Driving down a fucking street in America deserves death in your book. Check yourself bro. You are lost as fuck.
Bro, you aren't anti qualified immunity, you are totally cool with it. You are cool with this mother being murdered, and her daughter left an orphan tonight, because she did what she was shouted at by the officers to do, which was 'move move move'.
You are OK with it today, because it is in alignment with your politics. Yesterday the right said J6 was a peaceful march, today a mom following basic traffic safety and the 'move move move' command yelled by government employees at her deserves being murdered because she 'move move move'd.'
> Bro, you aren't anti qualified immunity, you are totally cool with it.
> You are cool with this mother being murdered, and her daughter left an orphan tonight,
Nope, quite the opposite, I’m just not caught up in the heat of the moment they way you are.
When this is evaluated legally your emotion will not be taken into account. I specifically left emotion out of my observation and kept my observation as coldly specific as possible because that is how this will play out legally. Unless something changes drastically, no criminal legal ramifications will come of this.
> You are OK with it today, because it is in alignment with your politics
Nope again. My politics run across a spectrum and don’t directly align with any party. Recently I think the democrats have descended into utter lunacy, but GOP candidates almost never get my vote. In fact, in the last 15 years only a single GOP politician has gotten my vote and only because I knew his opponent personally and specifically voted against him.
You should probably not have stopped reading after “my vote”. You could have read further to the point where I described only voting GOP candidate once in the last 15 years…and only then because I was voting against his opponent who I knew personally, and because of that I knew they were corrupt. Perhaps I should have voted for the crook so I passed your acid test of democratic purity?
Your logic would defend the Boston massacre that started our country. Your default reaction is to be un-American.
Bro you shit posted FAFO to a 37 year old mom being murdered because she turned down a street that ice randomly had an unmarked car parked in the middle of. You aren't rational. You aren't middle of the road. You literally smuggly posted FAFO as your response to a mom with her call full of her childs stuffies, because she drove down the wrong street and ended up blocked by an unmarked car. That isn't normal, that isn't American. Like I said, check yourself, because you are lost. I left California for a red red state because I was middle. I know what 'middle' means. Middle means default being against arbitrary federal government use of force, especially when lethal. You can lie to yourself that you are middle. Don't lie to me, thanks.
Your totally rational position:
If ICE blocks the road with an unmarked car like in this case, if you stop, you are interfering with their activities.
If you don't stop, you are a threat to their life and they can kill you.
Normal people get emotional when that becomes the new normal from their government. Not post FAFO. And you never address anything contradictory to your position. You are purely posting talking points. You aren't middle of the road. You are all in on this. You own it as much as any MAGA bro.
ARMED GOVERNMENT AGENTS YELLED AT HER TO MOVE MOVE MOVE. THE AGENT IN QUESTION VIOLATED HIS TRAINING AND PROCEDURE. THE AGENT IN QUESTION STEPPED UP IN NO FEAR FOR HIS LIFE WHEN SHE WAS BACKING UP, HE DID NOT MOVE AWAY LIKE SOMEONE IN FEAR WOULD. SHE WAS A RANDOM MOM THAT DROVE DOWN THE WRONG STREET. You are a crappy American trying to justify/normalize this. You are a crappy American saying FAFO is valid procedure for law enforcement in the USA. You are allowing our country to devolve into something awful. You are cool with that. You are NOT middle of the road.
The government/cops can defend their actions without you. The middle position, and our job as Americans, is to hold our government accountable. Not justify a government where a mom can be murdered because she drove down the wrong street. You are lost. I was a libertarian dumb ass once, but I checked myself and realized I wasn't being honest. I wasn't being a good person nor American, I was being a political animal for shallow, unevenly applied weak/shallow political theory.
Just because people are demanding outrage doesn’t mean I have to shut off my brain and go along with it. Perhaps that is the way you want to operate, and good for you—you do you—but I don’t let my emotions overwhelm me about things like this.
You and others are essentially demanding that I believe a crafted narrative here and get all pissed off about it. It’s not a narrative that appears to supported by all of the confirmed information right now (and newsflash, I am not buying every detail the government is peddling either). I have seen a few comments on here purporting some “facts” that now appear to be in contradiction to some witness statements (non-ice/government and are protestors) on video that have even come out today.
That is the problem with crafting a narrative…sometimes information comes out and gets in the way of the story you want to tell. Lots of things being claimed in this crafted narrative (both yours and the governments) are easily proven or disproven and I am sure will be before this issue reaches a conclusion.
Bear in mind what I initially did here was posted was an assessment of what I observed in a video and how what was present within that video will likely make it difficult to get that agent’s qualified immunity waived and explained why. I have also responded to others who are suggesting violence as a response, countering that using your vote to change is the better way to go. You have probably seen me comment that when valid laws are being enforced, that interference with that enforcement can create problems for those doing the interference. You have seen me comment that we are where we are because America voted how it voted.
I stand by all of that no matter what the eventual conclusion of this event turns out to be.
> then attempted to murder a police officer with her car.
This is just false information. He was off to the left of her hood, and her wheels were hard to the right. He wasn't in front of her vehicle, she wasn't driving towards him, and she wasn't trying to murder anyone.
Maybe pg should come back to this board, and make HN his primary venue. Does he really like getting backscatter from all the bots and botlike humans on xitter? He could still syndicate there.
Meanwhile, HN certainly could stand to use an opinionated benevolent dictator (or at least tone-setter), not mere "both sides" moderation (as heroic as it has been). With such an anchor we might be able to constructively discuss these problems without getting derailed by the handful of reactionary flamebaiters.
The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
It is unfortunately very true. For about 20 years I moderated a very large forum. We tried so hard to be even handed it was somewhat comical, and then one day I decided to just clean house. Things improved remarkably after that but there were always new people willing to see how far they could bend the rules. It's interesting how you get these new accounts on HN that immediately start lawyering with the rule book in hand. There is no way that that is organic.
Dan & Tom are so incredibly restrained, I'd be much more of a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later type because the longer such behavior goes on the more people will believe it is acceptable.
You all tried this narrative last time Ice shot someone up already. And the charges were dropped because it's a bullshit made up PR narrative to provide cover until time has passed.
Dude seriously, watch the video in slow motion and make a sane judgement.
There's no reason at all they should've done that. She wasn't even running over him or pointing a gun or anything. If they wanted to catch her they could've done it.
Did you read this link? This was what a Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News today, about this specific incident. Are you stating DHS who overseas ICE conducted a murder so they could spin far left talking points?
Keep justifying the murder of a 37 year old mom of a now orphaned child because it threatens your political position.
That's not why they are justifying it: they are justifying it because if they accept it they have to accept fractional responsibility for outcomes such as these and MAGA does not want anything to do with the negative fall out of their own actions.
From what I've observed solipsistic entitlement blaming everyone else while performing zero self-reflection is a core tenet of "MAGA". It's why boomers are attracted to it like flies to a rotting animal - they were promised everything for buying into the system and had the good life for "working hard", so if someone cannot repeat their "success" (nb. everything bubble) then it must be that person's own fault.
jacquesm is a longstanding member of this community with serious technical chops. He has fabricated his own fucking windmill, among many other awe-inducing projects.
I am an American, and I generally find his political judgements to be spot on, or if I disagree then at the very least enlightening. Frankly given the abjectly moronic siren song narratives too many of my "fellow countrymen" have fallen for, we could use more outside context from allied countries of the western world to steer us through these dark times. Remember when our friends the French tried to stop us from making that horrible Iraq War mistake and the thanks they got was "freedom fries" ?
Meanwhile, you seem to be some kind of fascist-cheerleader who relishes in trolling. All over this thread, you've spared no opportunity to rally support for agents of the state executing an American citizen and mother. I would tell you to get the fuck out of my country, whose values of individual liberty and limited government you clearly have no understanding or appreciation of, before Lady Liberty sticks her torch up your ass. But really you're just sick with social media psychosis, and you need help.
(if you want a breadcrumb you might be able to follow to start to get out, you've said you can see the "media manipulation" by "the left". perhaps you could look for the same type of manipulation by "the right", and then ask yourself who has the power right now)
Let's refrain from personal attacks and harassment. I am a VERY long term member of this forum, since the days it was for entrepreneurs and programmers instead of overrun with far left propagandists who only want to talk politics.
Trying to shut up people who disagree with you is literally the fascism you claim to abhor. Not to mention that fascists themselves were socialists (Nazis is a nickname for National Socialists, who had a 25 point platform half of which matches the Democratic Socialists nearly exactly - https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party...).
Engage on the actual merits of the discussion rather than saying anyone who disagrees with you is supposedly a shill and a bad person.
Am I wrong here? I am trying to share my view, which while unpopular, is valid and backed by the full video and witness accounts. I am getting called a "fascist-cheerleader who relishes in trolling" and that I somehow support "agents of the state executing an American citizen" (which is ridiculous as I am a libertarian).
I am guessing you have spent too much time in the far left echo chamber that is Reddit, where dissenting opinions are purged. Try X.com where everyone from the far left leaders of Minnesota who are glorying in the attention being moved off of their multi billion dollar fraud and forced resignation can share their opinion to anyone else with an idea can share it.
BTW - I come to hacker news to learn about entrepreneurs, programming, etc... not to argue politics. Let's go back to what this forum is for.
> BTW - I come to hacker news to learn about entrepreneurs, programming, etc... not to argue politics. Let's go back to what this forum is for.
Most of your recent submissions and comments are political. I invite you to go back to posting about entrepreneurs, programming, and etc. if that’s what you’d rather be doing.
> Engage on the actual merits of the discussion rather than saying anyone who disagrees with you is supposedly a shill and a bad person.
> Am I wrong here?
Since you're asking for it: yes. But I can see how from your perspective it looks that way.
You just personally attacked jacquesm for not being an American, and then have the gall to complain about personal attacks? Yet another example of reactionary hypocrisy.
From what I (and apparently many others) have seen is that there is no merit to your assertions about what factually happened. It seems as if you're simply repeating what you've heard from the regime, government news sources (eg Fox), or some other bald-faced liars. I'm not saying you yourself are deliberately lying, rather you're caught in a filter bubble so strong it's causing you to rally around the killers of a fellow American citizen.
Sorry, but you're simply not a libertarian. An actual libertarian believes in individual liberty front and center - in this case the freedom for a non-violent woman to not be assaulted and then ultimately killed by government agents, for what amounts to Constitutionally-protected filming, criticism, and heckling. But there is certainly a strain of fake libertarianism whereby people will overindulge in the deductive parts of its framing, attracted to the idea that the violation of a precondition serves as a justification for a draconian response. But this is not libertarianism! Rather it is more appropriately described as cryptofascism.
On this specific topic, I am most certainly open to evidence that Renee physically impeded or assaulted ICE agents before they chose to create an an escalated high-stakes situation. So far I have yet to see any beyond vague allusions and innuendos.
For reference here no, I haven't spent much time on reddit since 2009 or so. When I do, it's mostly to find answers to technical questions. Some of the subs on the top banner of my current throwaways - /r/kubota, /r/woodstoving, /r/vorondesign, /r/buildapcsales. I haven't seem much political commentary in them.
But as far as HN? I'd say HN owns this problem. The way I see it, this topic isn't really politics per se but rather a societal sickness that is the direct result of the consumer surveillance industry that HN helped build.
Also perhaps maybe part of your frustration here comes from having characterized everyone who doesn't support summarily executing American citizens in the street as "far left wackos" ?
Yep, happened a few months ago. Another engineer accused me in a code review. I didn't really appreciate it, and I told them so. We talked about it, reached an understanding, and have better expectations about disclosing AI use in PRs now.
I don't think this is insignificant. IMO it's a trust and culture problem that probably needs to be addressed.
I don't understand why people expected Bluesky to be different.
Even if it's possible for individuals to curate a positive experience for themselves, at a population level, it's still a corrosive, addictive, reductive medium. The incentives are the same. You can't outrun McLuhan.
Bluesky, Mastodon, Truth Social, Threads, etc. only work as long as users feel like they're surrounded by safe ideas and allies. None of it scales. It only works in echo-chamber mode.
SSGs are good for static sites with no interactivity or feedback. If you want interactivity or feedback, someone (you or a 3rd party service provider) is going to have to run a server.
If you're running a server anyway, it seems trivial to serve content dynamically generated from markdown - all an SSG pipeline adds is more dependencies and stuff to break.
I know there's a fair few big nerd blogs powered by static sites, but when you really consider the full stack and frequency of work that's being done or the number of 3rd party external services they're having to depend on, they'd have been better by many metrics if the nerds had just written themselves a custom backend from the start.
I just wanted to learn how to create an enterprise grade web application. I read a book on Django last year and did a few tutorials and enjoyed it. I also deploy infra on gcp and it works well there. It cost about $60/month for baseline hosting with light traffic/storage. I will probably use it for an interface for some of my ml projects. I was also looking into dart/flutter a much steeper learning curve for me personally.
This is pretty much how I began developing websites too. Except it was 2001 instead of 2026. And it was ASP (the classic ASP that predates ASP.NET) instead of Python. And I had a Windows 98 machine in my dorm room with Personal Web Server (PWS) running on it instead of GCP.
It could easily have been a static website, but I happened to stumble across PWS, which came bundled with a default ASP website. That is how I got started. I replaced the default index.asp with my own and began building from there. A nice bonus of this approach was that the default website included a server-side guestbook application that stored comments in an MS Access database. Reading through its source code taught me server-side scripting. I used that newfound knowledge to write my own server-side applications.
Of course, this was a long time ago. That website still exists but today most of it is just a collection of static HTML files generated by a Common Lisp program I wrote for myself. The only parts that are not static are the guestbook and comment forms, which are implemented in CL using Hunchentoot.
I remember ASP (application service provider, before cloud became synonymous with hosting), you are making me nostalgic. Back then I was in sales, I was selling real time inventory control, CRM and point of sale systems distributed over Citrix Metaframe in a secure datacenter. Businesses were just starting to get broadband connections. I would have to take customers to the datacenter to motivate them to let us host their data. Eight years later, google bought the building for $1.8b and eventually bought adjacent buildings as well.
We are talking about different ASPs. I am referring to Active Server Pages (ASP), the server-side scripting language supported by Personal Web Server (PWS) and Internet Information Services (IIS) on Windows. It is similar to PHP Hypertext Processor (PHP) and Java Server Pages (JSP) but for the Windows world. I began developing websites with ASP. Over the years, I dabbled with CGI, PHP, JSP, Python, etc. before settling on Common Lisp as my preferred choice for server-side programming.
I agree. To be more clear, that $60 is an estimate for a small configuration and includes serverless infrastructure to process 500,000 requests per month, plus storage, including a 20gb sql database and 100gb of object storage to serve video and images. More ideal for an application. You run the app in a container and only get charged for the requests, the sql database is persistent, so that cost $20/month and object storage with egress is about $10/month.
Let me describe my setup, so that you can compare. I use a Contabo VPS for around 5 USD month to host my Wagtail (django-based) site. The DB also runs on the same infra and since it's SQLite I can back it up externally.
I probably wouldn't be able to handle 0.5M requests, but I am nowhere near getting them. If I start approaching such numbers I'll consider an upgrade.
Check out Wagtail if you'd like to have even more batteries included for your site, it was a delight building my site with it:
Thank you for sharing your setup, I will certainly examine it and compare a bit later. I know my setup is a bit over the top, but it is the easiest to learn, since I live in gcp everyday. I certainly don't expect the .5m traffic, but that is one of the lower tiers for cloud run, serverless execution service. This is just a poc to get my fingers dirty with the MVT pattern.
I feel like the article should've been called "plaintext-only websites" or something, because if you had asked me I would've also defined "text-only" as image/video-less websites
I struggle with the purity of meaning for text-only as well. Before this thread, I didn't understand the mime settings; I've been living a lie with a browser friendly landing page that uses:
<!DOCTYPE HTML><plaintext>
And then all the other pages of the site to be pure *.txt files. In the end, until there are standards to point to, I just accept minimalism as the scale. I have ads, layouts, boxes / frames, and all sorts of possibly annoying aspects to my textsites. It is a medium that's just as easily abused as any!
"No arbitrary code execution" is how I'd put it. "Ads" can be plain text, they just usually aren't on the internet. If a plain text site decided to include them once in a while, I'd celebrate the choice.
Fun to think of it but I think my website actually got removed from that list because it has a logo on top of each page. It is available as “text only” (although not text/plain but text/markdown) by substituting the .xhtml with .md in the URL unlike some other pages on the textonly.website list, though :)
I got banned from /r/LateStageCapitalism for stating that we shouldn't be ripping on people for having a Coexist bumper sticker. OP getting their post rejected there doesn't surprise me in the least.
> I’m a backend engineer. I sit in the weekly sprint planning meetings where Product Managers (PMs) discuss how to squeeze another 0.4% margin out of "human assets"...
This is what made it feel fake to me. Even the most naive startups don't discuss these kinds of details with the dev team (or sometimes even the senior management) because it's not relevant to getting the work done. This alleged business is likely much larger and naturally siloed. Intent is not a success criteria, and things are always subject to change so why bake it into the code? Sounds like a terrible idea.
What would make way more sense is asking the dev team to expose configuration and stats. Dashboards are not suspicious because they are genuinely useful to the entire business, not just some evil inner group trying to squeeze a few percent.
I have had PMs and POs spend hours with the dev team spilling all the tea because they think it will help the devs better craft their vision. This particular aspect is very plausible to me.
yeah I've worked at a startup where there was one PM that tried really hard to get all the rest of the PMs to stop talking business with the engineers but it just didn't stick. It's too easy to talk about and especially an easy way for newer PMs to bond and gain acceptance with the devs
While management usually tries to hide the evil parts of the business, the nature of eyeing incremental gains is very typical of silicon valley where data cited numbers is the requirement for promotions
It's not even about trying to hide anything! It's not easy to coordinate any business unless there's a single source of truth external to any particular team.
It necessarily has to be need-to-know and decisions have to be based on dry explanations where the intent isn't clear at all unless you're sitting in on many meetings across many teams. This is just how things scale. I question where some people have worked that are commenting.
I've literally never worked anywhere that works like this, and I've worked everything from startups to very large companies. Product always gives both description and intent to software engineering so that engineering can make appropriate choices.
In fact, one of the better ways for an engineer to be labeled as "not independent enough for advancement" is a lack of curiosity about what you're building, because the lack of curiosity limits the engineer to a very narrow scope of work.
If you're the builder working on an evil mastermind's evil lair, you may not be told, specifically, that you're building a piranha pit. But they will have to disclose that it they need a pit, which is also a freshwater aquarium with a means of keeping large carnivorous fish alive. Also that there has to be a hidden trap door big enough for a human to fall through when a button is pushed.
And even if it is given a codename like "the justice room" or something, during the months of design and building no doubt some people will slip up and call it "the piranha pit" in your presence.
> In fact, one of the better ways for an engineer to be labeled as "not independent enough for advancement" is a lack of curiosity about what you're building, because the lack of curiosity limits the engineer to a very narrow scope of work.
I don't think we're talking about the same topic at all. It sounds like OP is so curious that they made the whole thing up, and I think you might be out of touch with businesses that have plenty of tech workers, but aren't a tech company (most businesses around the world).
I think you're starting from the conclusion that the poster made it up and working back from there.
Nothing in that article reads implausible to me, both that they were building things like "desperation score" (probably not called that, probably called something like "commitment" or something) and that any reasonably intelligent and curious engineer would have understood what he was building.
I recently did a deep dive of an (allegedly) human-curated selection of 40K blogs containing 600K posts. I got the list from Kagi’s Small Web Index [1]. I haven’t published anything about it yet, but the takeaway is that nostalgia for the IndieWeb is largely misplaced.
The overwhelming majority of was 2010s era “content marketing” SEO slop.
The next largest slice was esoteric nostalgia content. Like, “Look at these antique toys/books/movies/etc!”. You’d be shocked at the volume of this still being written by retirees on Blogger (no shade, it’s good to have a hobby, but goddamn there are a lot of you).
The slice of “things an average person might plausibly care to look at” was vanishingly small.
There are no spam filters, mods, or ways to report abuse when you run your content mill on your own domain.
Like you, I was somewhat surprised by this result. I have to assume this is little more than a marketing ploy by Kagi to turn content producers who want clicks into Kagi customers. That list is not suited for any other purpose I can discern.
I once spend half a day or so gathering RSS feeds from fortune 500 companies press releases. I expected it to be mostly bullshit but was pleasantly surprised. Apparently if one spends enough millions on doing something there is no room for bullshit in the publication.
Pleasantly surprised? I would think that these feeds would consist of product and company announcements and this would be the expected/appropriate content. Did you find something less sterile?
To convince you I would really need to rebuild this thing and show it side by side with blogs and news outlets.
To give one example, at the time I gathered f500 feeds my other feed sets (tens of thousands) suffered horribly from echo chamber effect. I had endless headlines announcing that David Bowie died. Something like half of it. I don't find that a particularly interesting topic. I have my own memories of his work and have little need for more. Perhaps you would like to read 20 of those? Surely not thousands? It isn't that it isn't a noteworthy event but it drowns out everything else.
Meanwhile Walmart is talking about donating returned Lego to charities.
Exon is talking about a giant ammonia deal to make carbon neutral hydrogen
and GM talks about their next generation software platform to help bring long term continuous innovation to customers through over-the-air updates.
They apparently have tons of diagnostic data and are looking to make it more practical complete with remote tuning for old clunkers.
This to me is quite a lot more interesting than say cbnc talking about war with iran, if bitcoin will survive and that Tesla stock is down???? I really needed more articles about those topics? I thought I already got a million of those. No way in hell I will open those links.
Do you intend to write it up? It would be interesting to get your take on how the classification works. And personally, as I know my feed is on the index as well, into which category my writing would be sorted.
Fair enough, I've added your site to my reader just in case you change your mind ;). The mechanics of your process actually sound more interesting than the results.
Probably a part of it, but I did not submit my site there directly at least. I think they used different sources to seed the list. There was a very active thread on HN about two or three years ago where very many folks shared their personal websites and from that several OPML lists where compiled. I noticed quite an uptick in feed subscribers around that time.
Also by the way, Henry Desroches, the author of the article we are discussing in this thread, also maintains a web directory personalsit.es, where I had submitted my site as well, so that might have also been a source for the kagi small web index.
Webmentions in particular are a totally unserious hobbiest technology that will never reach anything like mass adoption. That the author was willing to offer this as any kind of solution really colored my view of the rest of piece.
It’s like suggesting that everyone become HAM radio operators or join Gemini (the protocol).
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gb_IkGVK7WvsTAXfMvQU...
I've watched them all repeatedly. It's clear she was blocked in at the front, trying to pull out, and yielded, waving the ICE vehicles to go around front.
They instead got out, needlessly attempted to drag her from her vehicle, and she freaked out and tried to GTFO by turning right to avoid hitting any of them. She was shot and killed for it.
reply