Comment by mongol
10 hours ago
Do you mean tactical weapons on strategic targets? Or strategical weapons?
I honestly don't know what to believe, but I feel the doomsday clock is getting closer to midnight than in a long, long time
10 hours ago
Do you mean tactical weapons on strategic targets? Or strategical weapons?
I honestly don't know what to believe, but I feel the doomsday clock is getting closer to midnight than in a long, long time
Either way, we won't be talking about it on HN, this got flagged so hard it is on page 4. We don't do politics. By the way, here is some new nonsense built with an LLM.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of genocidal fascist-enablers on Hacker News. Even 10% is probably enough to flag every story into oblivion.
I know that this has been discussed several times, but I wish that the HN moderators would do more to unflag these stories. Yes, they will lead to flame wars and whatnot, but the collapse of the rule-based international order and repeated genocide by some Western nations is too big to ignore.
If WOIII happens, HN would still only be "How agents cooked my dinner" and "HN company This Is Fine raises 2B from a16z". How intellectually poor.
Garry Tan believes that democracy is bad and that we should have fiefdoms run by CEO kings. The rot is at the top.
To me, the problem isn't politics per se. It's the zealots, ideologues, and shills that it brings out. What I wish the moderators would do is go through the comments carefully and wield the ban hammer vigorously.
Even having a curated list of people that are not allowed to post on political-adjacent stories would help.
And no, I'm not a hypocrite, that list would help the quality of discussion here even if I am put on it. Now I won't like that, but, frankly, my contributions to the discussion on such topics are not all that vital.
1 reply →
A threat to destroy a civilization isn’t politics
An unempowered individual (a John Doe) threatening to destroy a civilization might be an unhinged individual, a terrorist, or a nusiance.
A President of a significant world power threatening to destroy a civilization is politics in its ultimate form: the power to f** over anyone it wants to.
Any subsequent backtracking/negotiation/etc is also part of politicking.
It's the uncomfortable underbelly of some societal structures.
No, obviously it is not, but, Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona so this is somewhat political. Since I posted the link above I'm obviously of the impression that this is something that might interest us but apparently the subject is too uncomfortable/too mainstream/too 'not HN' for discussion.
1 reply →
Whoa whoa there Jacques, We talk about politics here all the time.
'Uh, what kind of politics do you usually have here?'
'Oh we got both kinds -- Bay area zoning and Bay area homelessness.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-zEH8YmiM
I know that clip without clicking.
But yes, you're right. If there is an issue with BART it has 500 upvotes and stays on the homepage for at least a day.
Tactical nukes on strategic targets, if nukes will ever be used. While I think in general that the usage of nuclear weapons is "point of no return" action, I do think actual usage would be lower yield tactical nukes on strategic targes - compared to detonating Minutemen over Tehran, and similar high-casualty targets.
Only as a start. It would greenlight Russia to use them in Ukraine and would escalate from there.