I agree with everything you said except that the US is able to stop it. Think about it: Wouldn't Israel simply use these same tools in the US to install a puppet president they can easily manipulate?
It isn't corruption or the exposure of corruption that is the crime to European elites. The crime is doing something that will cause voters to choose something that they do not want the voters to choose.
If you are corrupt, and that corruption helps the opposition, you are accused of election manipulation. If you expose corruption, and that exposure helps the opposition, you are accused of election manipulation.
Meanwhile, the US is pouring billions of dollars into their elections, and if questioned, the questioning is considered an authoritarian encroachment on human rights. The US can make their officials into unpersons with sanctions for doing their jobs with integrity, and they'll just go along with it, tsk-tsking at the official in question.
Too bad for Golob, though - since it's Israel doing it for Israeli reasons, the "left-liberals" won't be able to get any of their usual support to attack them, because it's Israelis all the way down now. Ukraine is old news and competing with Israel for weapons, so there's no need for NATO-lackey Golob anymore.
If they could get people to install a mobile UI app that fetches instructions on what to up/down-vote, what to flag/vouch then they could and unlikely anyone would notice.
It is unlikely that enough people would check their up/down vote history, vouch and flag history and even then some would assume they fat-fingered such things.
Such a UI could also save and upload username and password to another site. Some people use the same creds on multiple sites.
I think a larger question to ask is if could they also be manipulating the people themselves who are reading these message boards prior to this post which later impacts such message board's voting.
Of course. So are their allies in the Trump admin, note also the abuse of the flagging mechanism to take down any news that might not portray them in the best light.
Lol. If Israel could manipulate HN do you think so many anti-Israel posts would appear on the front page, and each mitigating or nuanced comment about Israel would be flagged so quickly? No, Israel does not control or manipulate HN.
Practically everything of political attention gets flagged, even if it is tech related.
There may well be a pro-Israel brigade going out of their way to move that along, but there is an equally rapid anti-Israel brigade. Nothing remains on the front page for long.
They do it in a more subtle way on HN. They use friendly journalists to push technologies and solutions they have backend access too. Obviously the HN crowd is a very a tough crowd the fool, but it does not mean they are not trying.
Notice how the tech media will decide particular companies as the only ones worth talking about in certain segments. It's not only money behind this, there are other motivations.
Not a single pro-Israel article, nor even any article that even mentions Israel neutrally, has ever reached the front page of HN in the entire history of HN.
So, no. Israel is not "winning the up- and downvote war" of HN.
Why should people post positive articles about Israel when it‘s accused of genocide, its leaders have arrest warrants from international criminal court, when it introduces death penalty for Palestinians only, when its settler terrorise Palestinians in the West Bank, when it starts a war with all its neighbours, and on and on.
You are correct. Robustness requires a system that is working within it's tolerance margin, and stressing that inevitably leads to failure. A fault-tolerant system in this case would require a large amount of redundant humans. Unfortunately, the capitalist mindset prevents accepting any amount of "waste" as tolerable, which makes a robust system impossible to implement over time. Every system touched by a capitalist optimizer will eventually fail.
The idea that waste must be reduced is killing society, and this mindset must be addressed first before any other safety-critical system can be made reliable again.
I am alarmed at the high number of supposed engineers on this thread that are seemingly unaware of how safety-critical systems work. Literally every other piece of this system has redundancy built into it. Robustness is never optional in a scenario involving human safety.
TCAS is much simpler than your proposal. Ensuring that traffic can't get too close to you in midair is a different problem from analyzing complex, non-linear movements at tightly-packed airports. How do you implement this system while avoiding false positives?
Imagine that you're landing at one of two parallel runways. There's a plane lining up on the other runway. You can't have proximity warnings like TCAS, because this is a safe situation even though you get close to the other plane. What if that plane is taxiing towards your runway? You can't predict its movements until it starts entering the runway because it may just stop at the hold short line, as it should. Extrapolate this simple scenario to anything that could ever happen at airports with a large variety of actors, and you'll start to see why everyone in the world is still relying on humans to do this.
The real answer is that the airline industry is huge, and adding more safety measures will cost billions, and it'll dampen the stock market in the short term. Also, because there's ample room for finger-pointing, the decision-makers who could push for better safety are unlikely to be sued. Your local theme park is probably obsessive with maintenance and safety features, because they'll definitely get a lawsuit if someone is injured.
There are millions of people who are self employed in an industry where they could be maimed or killed if they screw up who manage to make it to retirement.
I think the better question is how you get a system in which people are only responsible for any one facet to get the same performance out of people that a painter can get out of himself when he's setting up his own ladder that he personally has to climb on.
I don't think the GPs point is about personal safety of workers, but rather critical safety systems that rely on one person with no backups. Like an ATC tower for a busy airport staffed by a single person on an overnight shift.
A painter who does a bad job setting up a ladder is going to have a bad time, a lone ATC operator having a heart attack potentially puts multiple large aircraft full of people in danger...
A terminal still offers a more composable interface than a GUI. Analog feedback is still a concern for high level pilots. You are confusing power tools with entry-level instruments.
I won't debate this. I'm a fan of the enduring pipe operator and the simple elegance of process composition in *nix. My point was more: what will we need them for? To review code written by a bot? GUI tools are better for this IMHO, or at least, terminals aren't any better than GUI tools, possibly worse. To read the plan output of Claude code, why would I want raw markdown in a terminal when I can read the formatted output as intended in a different tool?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting "the future is IDEs/GUI/etc" but that it's some potentially new refinement over TUIs and GUIs where the focus is no longer on editing, tinkering, debugging, but perhaps new tools that make it easier and efficient to work with agent swarms and give them instruction/prompts.
Piping is a feature of the shell, not the terminal.
But composable means that cli tools produces text, consume text, and are configured through text. You can build independent tools to do separate task and then build a meta tools that coordinate them. While the individual tools may be complex, the coordination can be very easy. With posix shells, you have piping and subshells that do a lot of the heavy lifting.
Piping is implemented in the shell (bash, zsh, etc...), not the unix commands themselves nor the terminal emulator. Whether the above discussion was using the word "terminal" to refer to the terminal emulator, the shell, or the whole combined experience is anyone's guess.
I find this language fascinating. On one hand, the Department of "War" gives the department an underlying, unspoken goal that it should be involved in war with something. On the other hand, it's very easy to fund the Department of "Defense;" of course we need more money to defend our country. Don't we want to be safe! It's much less attractive to fund the Department of "War"
On the other hand, as long as the entire internet goes down when Cloudflare goes down, I'll be able to host everything there without ever getting flack from anyone.
Can we even prove it hasn't already happened?
reply