Military integration with law enforcement -> military tech licenses -> focus on cities -> cities have troves of SIGINT
Unencrypted group chat -> one friend hates one party -> another friend loves to talk about illegal habits -> tool hoovering it all up -> illegal habits friend is the pretext to look at politics friend
Clear as day, as this is what caused a bad time for insurgents in an actual war. Makes a lot of sense to apply it domestically! Tread on me.
Apparently crime only happens in big cities. It's weird, because where I grew up in rural Missouri, every-other dipshit was a meth junkie, robbing houses to support their addiction. But, well, maybe I just invented all that with my crazy imagination.
This comment makes me so sad-
I mean this genuinely, looking at your comment history its clear you've fallen into the far right rabbit hole, and this is what "catch you when you say something they don't like" means. No shade to you, there are hundred billion dollar campaigns waged to trap people in ideas like those that are designed to be isolating. But their goal is to push you away from friends and family and towards extremist beliefs.
I emphasize with how it must feel to seem iced out and victimised, it sounds awful! but this is not a normal position to have and most people do not believe the humans around them are fake or gaslighting
Your comment makes me sad, its clear you've fallen into the "blind left" rabbit hole. You take a comment like "catch you when you say something they don't like" means and assume they are "far right". On a spectrum of 1 to 10 where 1 is right and 10 is left. You can be at 6-7 and the people are 8-9-10 will shout your head off. This is a well documented issue in this day and age. Plenty of left thought leaders complaining about the ultra left.
No offense, but if they're having so much trouble maintaining connections with the people around them that they believe that they have no more need for other humans altogether, something has gone wrong.
The far right was from looking at their comment history and a little bit of reading between the lines. Maybe my read is wrong, but if you don't at least see the parent comment as a cry for help I don't know what to tell you.
Its well documented that online people will scream their heads off because there's no relationship worth maintaining, everything is temporary, but IRL a much wider range is tolerated.
If you had read what you're replying to, you'd have noticed the user based their "far-right" mention on the GP's "comment history," which does bear out.
Why are you going out of your way to defend "humans are unnecessary, we can self-actualize using only machines" as some sort of 'center-right' virtue? If anything I would hope and expect right-wingers to value human connection (quite the venerable tradition, mind you) even more than the left.
> you've fallen into the far right rabbit hole, and this is what "catch you when you say something they don't like" means
It might be true for this particular person, but people being a live minefield waiting to blow up in your face is more general experience. Regardless of your views, no matter how benign and out of mainstream controversy you perceived them to be, they will be taken as a reason to view you negatively by someone you know and sever or at least degrade the connection. People can mostly tolerate each other because they share very limited slice of themselves.
If you trip on such snag with AI you can just start another chat session. With people you basically need to find and befriend another person.
Yes, views do matter, but if you are not an utterly boring person you have variety of them and your similarly interesting friends also have a variety. If you fully exposed the entire variety of your respective views to each other you wouldn't be friends with most people you know.
I don’t think that’s true. Most people are willing to extend a good bit of grace, especially if there’s already a relationship worth preserving.
As in, if I just met someone and I know nothing about them other than they don’t like unions then we probably won’t be friends but if that came up later I’m not going to blow up a year of friendship over something like that.
OTOH if a friend started preaching white supremacy that would do it but I’d give a good shot to talking them out of it first.
Yet that risk and that complexity is itself what makes something real. Realness is persistence, the fact of there being a system behind the surface -- the more that that's true, the more real something is. Once you lose that, reality drains away -- and all its benefits with it. Think of how much less satisfaction people get from beating a game with cheats than from doing it 'the real way'; or even how much more satisfaction people get from building a real house, with their own two hands, than they do from doing so in Minecraft (itself pretty satisfying, just less so).
I think desire for "real" is just a form of masochism. This real that people talk about is just suffering in sufficient amount to silence their restless brains. Most people aren't like that. Most prefer to use pleasure instead of pain to calm their brains. They don't care if a thing is "real" as long as it does its job. For the 'real' afficiandos pleasure doesn't work. That's why they disparage things that bring joy and peace to other people. Because those things simply don't work for them. The only thing that works is appropriate amount of suffering to make their brain accept the stuff they are doing, that's not any more real or interesting for the average person.
Have you noticed how a huge variety of things can be "real"? And the only unifying factor is the suffering? I think it's because it's all about the suffering, not the narrations and the details.
Extremely myopic take. "Real" things can be just as pleasurable as not-"real" things, and not-"real" things can be just as painful. I don't even know by what criteria you're making these distinctions, but it has the smell of an embittered person.
The term was invented by the suers, not the protestors. It’s possible to criticize Israel’s actions without being antisemitic, holocaust scholars call what’s happening there a genocide
it is extremely hard to form a reasonable opinion of what is happening in gaza with the current level of vitriol online. i feel i’d have to do a substantial personal research project to see if i can believe the cumulative casualty numbers that are being bandied about. not to mention the numbers about deaths from starvation.
i wish institutions would do the work to publish their sources in a way that is clear complete and verifiable.
i would love to understand what others on hn do day-to-day other than takes cues from media they “trust”.
my wish would be for an article to have a section at the bottom explaining the source of the figures included in the body. for example they mention a number of dead but there’s no word about where it comes from.
“The Left” does not mean to the left of you personally. It’s like how there’s only two types of drivers, insane speeders and insane slowpokes and that’s true no matter how fast you drive :p
The “left” in terms of voters is against the genocide in Gaza and for socialist policies and candidates like Mamdani. Plenty of polls and evidence supports this.
NYT undid their endorsement policy to specifically Not endorse mamdani and is very biased against Palestine. Their opinion columns like David Brooks etc are blowhard conservatives too.
In terms of mainstream news sources, I consider the Guardian US to be a reasonable big tent news source for the center left.
NPR is centrist. They take no sides even if (imo) one is obviously correct.
NYT and WaPo is the ‘reasonable right’ (still report facts but with a right wing spin- see their billionaire owners).
Fox etc. are not news they are ‘entertainment’ and do not report facts and are a vile propaganda engine that must be destroyed
The NYT is not right. WaPo is perhaps a touch more right than the NYT but both are left-leaning and liberal. NPR is centrist but its editorials lean liberal.
You’ve cherry-picked a few stories where the NYT leaned more right, but on the whole the NYT, WaPo, and NPR certainly lean liberal or left of the general American public. The point of labels like right,left, liberal, conservative, etc. are relative valuations to the general American public. Just because the NYT leans less to the left on issues you are more to the left on does not make the NYT right-leaning.
Picking more: they pushed HARD the Claudine Gay story, putting it on the front page ten consecutive days. That story was a manufactured right wing operation to oust her. They also are still very anti-trans.
I am operating on: if they are to the right of mainstream democratic voters, those that won Mamdani the primary and overwhelmingly support Palestine, then they do not get to claim to be left wing.
If I entertain your opinion that they are right of mainstream democratic voters (debatable, but let’s say so). How would you reconcile that with the fact that they are far more to the left than mainstream republican voters?
You’re operating on a fundamentally flawed premise. This is why if you’re using labels you have to compare against the general population. Just because you’re more left than Bob doesn’t make Bob right-leaning.
> The “left” in terms of voters is against the genocide in Gaza and for socialist policies and candidates like Mamdani. Plenty of polls and evidence supports this.
Not only are "left" and "right" vague relative terms used to classify the electorate in the US, they also encompass a whole array of issues an things that aren't binaries that fit on the axis. Someone can be pro-Israel and yet overall of the left; just as someone can be very pro-Palestine and yet overall of the right. In fact on this particular issue this seems more and more common - the real divide is probably generational versus political. I recently heard a segment on the radio from a convervative evangelical bemoaning that their future leaders were increasingly "anti-Israel" and this was a huge problem.
In America, we simply roughly assign Democratic positions - left, Republican position - right. These are both really big tents. "Left" positions include support of candidates like Sanders or Mamdami but also in practice even stronger support for candidates like Clinton and Biden.
Arguing that someone is "on the right" simply because they don't support your candidate of choice is silly; it's sort of like the rightists out there arguing Trump is a liberal RINO because he doesn't support the bedrock conservative principle of free trade.
> Their opinion columns like David Brooks etc are blowhard conservatives too.
NYT does make a show of having a "balanced" opinion panel and David Brooks is one of the token (2 of 11 in the source link) conservatives, but it seems strange to describe such a bland, anodyne person (also anti-Trump, by the way) as a blowhard. IIRC one of the complaints from the opinion editor that got fired for printing pro-Trump letters to the editor was that not one single columnist was pro-Trump and therefore obviously didn't represent any mainstream conservative audience.
Idk, it feels a lot to me that NYT is taking marching orders from the same people that control the Fox News propaganda machine.
Obviously NYT is rarely explicitly pro-Trump but that's not their point. Instead, they give a liberal’s framing on right wing talking points.
For example, they ran the manufactured Claudine Gay story front page 10 days in a row. They give the “sensible liberal”s take on why trans people should not get healthcare. Article 3 today is pro tariffs.
lol, I stopped caring about them because they weren’t willing to say anything about Gaza and bent over backwards to excuse what Trump was doing. If center-right NPR is too liberal I shudder to think of your politics
Many major establishment news orgs are similarly guilty of a heavy pro-Israel bias (WSJ and NYT as other examples), but I would argue this is more on the establishment vs independent spectrum, rather than the left vs right spectrum.
Equating a for-profit news corporation's politics with how they handle a singular topic like Gaza would be a bit reductive.
The one that gave up the game for me most re: mainstream liberal media was how often NYT ran the Claudine Gay story (front page ten consecutive days). The entire controversy was completely manufactured as a right wing cancel culture operation and the New York Times laundered it under their ‘liberal’ reputation.
NPR is better than most as their are not owned privately by a billionaire or collectively by billionaire shareholders. But they play the “both sides are reasonable” game annoyingly often with every issue, as if there is some sort of sensible middle ground to be reached somewhere between Obama and Hitler.
Seeing Gaza in particular covered this way - one the most appalling human rights catastrophes of my lifetime aided and funded by my own government - was too much for me to stomach.
