Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rsingel's comments login

Acting DC AG Martin has a history of sockpuppetry. Bought a sycophant a laptop and then ghostwrote Facebook posts attacking a judge in a case against Martin. Should have been disbarred.

https://www.propublica.org/article/ed-martin-trump-interim-d...

It's always projection with the MAGA crowd


Mark wrote a slim volume about this. Well worth a read

https://a.co/d/fGvKd3u

Mark was a true American hero.



Interesting but a CRM built by a non-technical person using AI?

I think that's pretty irresponsible - building a product that holds PII without any concern for security. Not to mention that's a lawsuit waiting to happen.


Oh the irony of the Chrome dev blog failing Google's own Core Web Vitals test

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/a-customizable-select


This is some high level gaslighting.

The AP is the nation's premier news source, it's relied upon by nearly every other news source for coverage. Banning the AP from the White House for not hewing to the WH's ideological garbage is an attack on the free press, even if it is not (and I think it likely is) a violation of the First Amendment.

Then we have the attacks on Perkins Coie and other law firms for their legal work, revoking their credentials - another violation of the First Amendment, which protects not just speech but action.

The Secretary of State revoking a green card for protected speech? Again an assault on the First Amendment.

Meanwhile over at the FCC, Brendan Carr is launching investigations into social media organizations over their moderation processes (https://reason.com/2025/02/05/how-the-fccs-warrior-for-free-...), gone over 60 Minutes over a baseless claim about how an interview was edited, and threatening to revoke broadcast licenses for not being nice to Trump: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/trumps-fcc-chair....

Trump repeatedly sues media organizations, several of which have folded in a way to basically pay a bribe.

Revoking funding to Columbia, a private university, for not being draconian enough against people protesting a genocide in Gaza? Also a free speech violation.

And as for the Biden admin pressuring social media companies on Covid and election misinfo? The administration was simply requesting that the companies review content that was against the guidelines - stuff like Alex Berenson's disinfo on vaccines and illegal tweets about voting by SMS. The former kind of content likely killed 100,000s of people, the latter was illegal.

Spare us your Trumpy gaslighting on DEIA - having a goal of having a more diverse and inclusive workplace and educational institutional isn't illegal.

Maybe try doing your own research instead of sputtering out MAGA talking points.


And the NYT only published when Risen's book was going to come out, meaning the reporting that they paid for was going to get published in a book and embarrass the hell out of them


R.I.P.

He was a true and brave whistleblower.

I had the luck of getting a hold of his docs when they were under court seal, and we published them at Wired.

Only met and interviewed him later. He was a gentle man with a moral compass. A rarity even among whistleblowers.

The world is poorer without him.


A gentle man with a strong moral compass


Greenwald was libertarian/right leaning. Went from supporting the Iraq War to being a Ron Paul fanboy to a useful Tankie idiot for the Silicon Valley right. Now a grievance grifter and an apologist for Putin and Assad.

Bari Weiss is not a liberal. She's a culture war grievance grifter.

Matt Taibbi got mad he got called out for his shitty sexist behavior in Russia in the 90s when MeToo happened and made a hard right turn. Now a grievance grifter.

See the pattern?


TSA aren't cops.

They have no authority to take a weed pen or detain you for having one.

They can call cops but they can only confiscate items deemed to be threats to a plane and only detain you for the same.


I had the experience once of TSA finding numerous "things" in my luggage, looking at them and clearly knowing what they were, giving me a "you shouldn't have done that" look, putting them back, and letting me go.


Language changes. There's been lots of inclusive changes that people have adopted without even knowing.

Police officer and firefighter are pretty ingrained now, but those weren't the dominant terms just 30 years ago


The difference is that police officer and firefighter are roles that can be occupied by people of either sex, so the change of language from policeman and fireman made sense in that context.

By contrast, pregnancy is a state of being that is by its very nature female-only. Males cannot become pregnant, as by definition they lack a female reproductive system.

The "pregnant people" terminology implies that pregnancy is something that affects all people, male and female alike. But this is of course not true at all.

It's also not inclusive - consider that much of the sex-based oppression women experience goes back to the ability to conceive children. "Pregnant people" discards and downplays all of that.


Some people have unusual chromosomes, ie. Not women or men's, and they can still get pregnant. Other people transition but still have kids. Sex or gender; the language can apply just fine to anyone who gets pregnant and is appropriately vague. I am fairly certain the term isn't one of disrespect to women's rights or accomplishments.


Regardless of sex chromosome aneuploidies or a desire to be the opposite sex, everyone who is, who could be, or who has ever been pregnant is female.

Another point against using the phrase "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women" is that it leaves no way to talk about women who aren't pregnant. "Non-pregnant people" includes every man and every prepubescent child.


Yes there is, it's "non-pregnant woman". You can still say pregnant woman if you want to or need to, it's not banned.


But my point was about situations where the term "pregnant people" is being mandated or strongly recommended instead of "pregnant women".


> Regardless of sex chromosome aneuploidies or a desire to be the opposite sex, everyone who is, who could be, or who has ever been pregnant is female.

That is _your_ definition, and it is very debatable.


Do you have a counterexample to illustrate your point?


>Regardless of sex chromosome aneuploidies or a desire to be the opposite sex, everyone who is, who could be, or who has ever been pregnant is female.

Nature disagrees with you. There are many animals out there that can change sex. Sex, gender, etc etc don't have a perfect universal definition because nature doesn't work that way. The scientific literature is trying to capture the observed variety we see in humans and it will continue to evolve as our understanding evolves.

This whole line of argument reminds me of the history of pi and the governments that tried to legislate it to fixed values. Just because you want things to be simple doesn't mean that reality backs you up.


We're talking about humans. That some other animal species have a reproductive strategy of sequential hermaphroditism is not relevant to the conversation.


It's relevant to language, since we use the same terms for a lot of different thing.


Which non-human species do you believe are being referred to when the term "pregnant women" (or "pregnant people") is used?


very wrong!


How so?


Language changes ... when you get to call anyone not going along with your desired changes a "bigot" or worse.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: