> at my income level the price difference between that and Zara is pretty much immaterial
this is probably just regular bragging, right?
now, discussing how donating $100 versus $10k to a cause or community being negligible to their economic security would at least front-load some humility, but capitalists gon' capitalist. oops!
thank god this is Hacker News though, and not some safe-haven for boring rich people!
"I buy more $10,000 cardigans than you buy Hanes undershirts" is kinda the definition of bragging. What a weird ass corner of the internet where it's just assumed everybody earns $millions. Like, lol, no outside SV, London, and NYC, that's truly exceptional. Like, the average CEO in the US doesn't even clear $1 million (according to Google's AI search results).
You can construct a philosophical argument that value is all relative without having to casually drop anecdata demonstrating that you personally spend many hundreds of times more on an everyday object than is typical without consideration.
Can you describe a way of communicating that same point without it being bragging in your eyes? I guess I could’ve engaged in the gymnastics of saying SWIM like they used to do on some drug forums :)
"I have spent more than $500 dollars on pants before, because I'm lucky to be in a position where for me these things are a matter of taste and whim, rather than budget, and don't really affect my finances too much whether I do or don't buy them."
I don't think I have to explain to you how the gap between what you said, and what I wrote above, is what is causing offense here. You likely deserve 100% of your success, but its just common sense to obscure the specifics of it if you are way out of band in relative terms.
Its like saying: "You know, I never really get ill" at the cancer ward. Sure, its true, but read the room.
Well, after all it’s HN and this is the kind of content that attracts much of the users. I’d certainly be more careful with that wording on a website that caters to a very different audience, but it’s not long ago when indiehackers posts of people “bragging” about their successes were consistently at the top of the front page.
Not convinced I misread the room, especially considering the upvotes.
> don't really affect my finances too much whether I do or don't buy them
Isn't this the same brag as before?
I can't tell how this is different than throwing some numbers in the mix, the person relating their personal experience expresses they have fuck-it-bucks either way
Not naming numbers is precisely the point, because you obfuscate the reality of the size of the gap, which in the end is what everything is about. The gap creates the offense. Everybody knows there's rich people, but being confronted by exactly how rich, to the detail of a number, is the offensive part (if done by that rich person without any clear reason).
I'm not sure why people keep piling up to pretend this is such a normal thing, this is literally why people don't discuss salaries despite it technically being in their own interest: specifics ground the fuzzy notion of inequality into reality like nothing else.
The offensive post inflates the perceived inequality from "500$ pants is too much for pants" to "10k means nothing to me" while my version leaves the specifics outside of the conversation. In my version, the person could put the level of "too expensive for pants" at 1k, still an order of magnitude lower than the offensive post.
Finally, I acknowledge that this is a privileged position to be in explicitly, because that signals that you are aware that this is an exceptional situation to be in (which I'm not sure the offensive post author is aware of, even now).
You could have omitted "but at my income level the price difference between that and Zara is pretty much immaterial." and come across more matter-of-fact than brag. IMO.
No it doesn't. He's establishing the fact that he can afford very expensive clothes and why, from personal experience, he believes them to be worth it if you can afford it. If you omit the entire sentence the whole meaning of the post changes. I think you may just be upset because he's wealthier than you.
Also later tried to briefly establish the fact that had I been offered such products a couple of years ago, I too would’ve found the pricing completely ridiculous.
I've had a similar journey to yours, albeit on a smaller scale. I used to think that buying jeans that cost over $40 was outrageous, but more recently I learned the value of buying nice raw denim jeans that can cost upwards of $300-400. They last way longer and look so cool after years of wear. With a little maintenance they can be permanent additions to your wardrobe.
> I think you may just be upset because he's wealthier than you.
Aw, Mark; that's not it, pal. His last paragraph about tailored clothing captures the thought well without throwing around dollar amounts or brand names. But thanks for trying to defend your capitalist masters like a good little right-winger!
It's not acceptable to post in this inflammatory style on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're here for curious conversation, not battle. It's also not acceptable on HN to scour through someone's past activity (whether on HN or elsewhere) in order to attack them, and that kind of belittling language is never OK here. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
It's strange to me that you chose to not cite the guidelines to elsewhere such as:
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.
Are anti-immigrant sentiments acceptable if they are simply well-articulated?
And if not, then why do you feel it necessary to be more critical of the language I or lalaithion use for explicit dismissals of racists and xenophobes than the actual racism or xenophobia itself?
People continually try on this “gotcha” that we moderate more for tone than substance and that HN freely allows hateful rhetoric as long as it is smuggled in a Trojan Horse of “civility”.
This is of course a non-starter and nothing in the guidelines allows it. The first words in the “In Comments“ section of the guidelines are Be kind, and there is nothing “kind” about xenophobia or other hateful ideas, by definition.
But as longtime forum moderators we can't be so naïve as to succumb to an attempt to characterize any discussion about immigration laws and their enforcement as “anti-immigration” and ”hateful”. From what I can see this is discussion is not one of “pro” or “anti” immigration but about how laws should be interpreted and enforced, which is always something that should be able to be discussed in a spirit of curiosity. The guidelines cover this too:
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Nailer is a user who has crossed the line before and we've appealed to him multiple times to observe the guidelines, and will certainly do so again if and when it is warranted. In this case I don't see how he is the one who has crossed the line, but even if he was, that doesn't excuse you from doing so.
If you see guidelines-breaking comments on HN, just flag them or if they're especially egregious, email us (hn@ycombinator.com). If you escalate, then you become the one in the wrong, by making a bad situation even worse.
you’re responding to a comment which states detainees are being sent to concentration camps, places like the deplorably named Alligator Alcatraz. i don’t think we should conflate that as deportation.
All, I recommend you familiarize yourself with relevant state laws regarding your protections when assisting folks that are in immediate danger, e.g.:
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_161.200
I'm not a lawyer. So, if you have counsel on retainer and can stomach the bill, get clarity there first. But know that many states have such protections on the books.
The veil of immunity for DHS agents may soon be pierced. Apathy and ignorance are no longer acceptable for this situation.
You can be arrested and charged with a federal criminal law, 18 USC 111 "assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees." The judge wont entertain your arguments about state law.
Fines and up to 8 years in a federal prison, 20 years if you use a deadly or dangerous weapon or actually inflict injury. You can get up to 15% off for good behavior, there is no parole.
One on hand, I'd really love to punch a neo-nazi to interrupt them disappearing people to concentration camps. On the other, ooooh scary federal charges.
Sort of. You have to look up if your state has "necessity/choice-of-evils” defense and the standard defense-of-others rule - and what scopes it has.
I'll tell you this much, most judges will regard a circumstance for you to exert force against a peace officer - seeming or actual - as an extralegal action, and will very rarely affirm it as a protected action from the books. And even if you beat such a case, it ruins your life in the process. Their qualified immunity will remain longer than you can remain solvent.
I asked a similar question elsewhere, but in states like Texas you can have a jury trial for just about any offense. Could federal charges go before a grand jury allowing nullification to be an option?
If you want to take a bet that enough of your peers have varying degrees of distrust in police AND that they are aware of jury nullification in procedure or in principle, sure.
lovely ideas that no longer work in america given that SCOTUS is now a branch of a political party so all the suing leads to nothing but time-wasting unfortunately
I am not a lawyer, but might it be possible to do entirely within a state using state law, in a way that fundamentally cannot be escalated to the supreme court because it does not involve federal law in any way? I expect this might require some changes to state laws to make it possible in the first place.
> I am not a lawyer, but might it be possible to do entirely within a state using state law, in a way that fundamentally cannot be escalated to the supreme court because it does not involve federal law in any way?
No, any arrests of federal agents notionally doing what they are assigned by the federal government will have an easy route for the federal government to raise justiciable questions of federal law regarding state interference with exercise of federal powers. The feds may not always have a good case—they won't always win in a fair court—but it's hard to imagine them not being able to actually get in the door with a federal court in that basis.
OTOH, when you have armed agents of the state attempting to forcibly arrest armed federal agents, you also have a very real risk of creating the kind of conflict that is resolved kinetically—and in a way that rapidly speaks out of control in scale—rather than in court.
does it similarly make you sad if your operating system tells you to update for new security patches or indicators?
the sheer volume of browser exploits - including in-the-wild exploited zero-click zero days - is frankly insane. intentionally leaving yourself unprotected is a bad choice that should be shoved back in your face, often.
> i see it everywhere.
i see it nowhere. update your software! and don't use chrome.
Browse the web with Tor via an up-to-date Firefox. You will run into this page over and over again. Speaking from experience, don't feel like looking it up on CF's docs.
edit: Just ran into the same page on Chromium 141.0.7390.122 without Tor or a VPN, but with NoScript, JShelter, and uBlock extensions enabled. It looks like JShelter + NoScript can trigger it.
This is the page you get:
> Your browser is out of date. Update your browser to view this site properly.
and software monoculture is widely considered a security threat, and so by pushing software monoculture, you yourself are pushing to weaken internet security. GP should potentially be applauded (if he's not using for example IE6)
i’m genuinely fascinated by your thought process here.
how did we go from “update your software; don’t use chrome” to “you are pushing software monoculture and weakening internet security”?
as for “they were not informing him of an insecurity”, this seems to be deliberately obtuse. virtually every major browser includes (and references in their release notes!) fixes for vulnerabilities in stable version updates.
>how did we go from “update your software; don’t use chrome” to “you are pushing software monoculture and weakening internet security”?
given the audience here, i think it's more likely that OP/GP is running an up to date browser that is of an alternate architecture that has not "mainstreamed" all of google and hollywood's ad and drm friendly CSS HTML
I think many of us here may equate intense thinking with "work", and completely neglect the physical component of our bodies; we are literally evolved to engage in strenuous physical activity yet remain sedentary.
plus, there is a positive feedback loop between aerobic exercise and mental health.
and what about him openly stating how he's considered declaring martial law to suspend elections?
an apt comparison I saw elsewhere is that the left side of the aisle is acting like the opposing team from Air Bud: "hey, a dog can't play basketball, it's against the rules!!" meanwhile, the dog is making shots over and over again.
i don’t think we should lull ourselves into complacency with projected certainties. if you listen to right-wing discourse, you’d know there is an not insignificant contingent of folks that are very okay with that path
Which is why it would trigger a civil war. Republicans will destroy democracy in the US before accepting defeat but the rest of us are not going to lie down and let them.
Who is going to lead? It's not as if we can all spontaneously take to the streets and start fighting the bad guys. It requires leadership, logistics, weapons, planning, and about a thousand other things. A would be leader would be taken out immediately. Realistically, the most feasible way a two-sided civil war happens is if a number of generals revolt. That's a big if. Soldiers need to eat and get paid. Who's going to do that? Otherwise, it's just the government - aka the orange lunatic with all the guns and money - running roughshod over everyone.
The most optimistic scenario would be an open and overwhelming revolt at all levels of government and forcing him to leave simply because there's nobody left who will obey. After that, we would need to return to some semblance of sanity and amend the constitution to prevent anything like this from happening again. It requires a competent Congress with principles and conviction. Furthermore, it requires massive public support. Unfortunately, about 30% of the population is eager to support the orange bastard and watch the world burn.
The country will be dealing with the fallout of this POS for the next 150 years, assuming the country even lasts that long.
The military would NOT support a third term for Trump. They swear to uphold the constitution and the constitution clearly says no president can serve for more than two terms. Same with any other tricks they try to pull that would let Trump still be president in 2029.
That’s the assumption and I hope it’s correct. We are in uncharted territory though. He’s been actively purging non-loyalists and punishing his foes. This is the dictator playbook and my fear is that he will be completely entrenched by the time anyone realizes he needs to be forced out.
The dictator playbook can't work with the way the US military is structured around loyalty to the constitution and not a person and Trump can't change that. I would estimate 90% of all officers despise him and basically none of them will support him in blatantly violating the constitution.
By default, I believe that anything you put in the "omnibox" is sent to Google - even if you don't press enter. So, if you use it as a clipboard of sorts and paste a secret / token / key, it should be considered compromised.
You can validate this by going to chrome://omnibox
I'll bite. Never did I ever meet anyone in the military that needed "two hours" to fall asleep when they had adequate physical exercise throughout the day.
If you're undiagnosed by a clinical physician for a disorder and have that issue, you're either sleeping too much, consuming too many stimulants, or not getting enough physical exercise.
Then why are you speaking to this particular case? Having a sleep disorder is not an immediate disqualifier for service, either. Did you serve in the military, or are you just throwing out more conjecture?
this is probably just regular bragging, right?
now, discussing how donating $100 versus $10k to a cause or community being negligible to their economic security would at least front-load some humility, but capitalists gon' capitalist. oops!
thank god this is Hacker News though, and not some safe-haven for boring rich people!