What he does with his own money is none of anyone's business. I live in a state where it is pretty evenly divided between parties. I have friends who support Trump and friends who don't like him. All of them are nice people who have valid reasons for who they support. Demonizing people because they don't agree with you is detrimental to society and it is not sustainable.
Even more detrimental to society is corruption, which this is. Who gives money to the leaders of your country and why should definitely be everyone's business.
Just an aside but this sentiment can't help feel a little comical just maybe at this moment. Like it all sounds right and we have heard it all before, but you can almost hear the impotent rehearsal of it in our current context.
> Demonizing people because they don't agree with you is detrimental to society and it is not sustainable.
Fascinating how this is only ever used as bludgeon in one direction. Never used when people talk about immigrants eating pets or being “vermin”, or when someone asks that you call them she/her or they/them. I wonder why that is. Surely not an abject lack of moral consistency.
> What he does with his own money is none of anyone's business.
Nah, if I don’t like where my money flows after I spend it, I am perfectly free to spend it in other ways. I’m sorry people like you dislike my freedom of association.
This reads like a lack of conviction. If you're willing to be friends with people who do deplorable things, that's your business. That's not a sign of maturity. That's cowardice, weakness, and an almost pathetically pathologic need to be liked. As an alternative to simply throwing your beliefs away in the pursuit of image, consider therapy. It worked for me.
Yeah supporting Trump is a bright stamp on your head that youre an ignoramus, completely vile, and/or a sociopathic predator who needs to be investigated because of they support a blatant rapist criminal what else do they let slide in their life.
They demonized themselves when they support a demon. There is no negotiating with bad faith sociopaths. Its been 10 years of crime after crime, are you blind? Do you read anything?
I really hope Framework ignores these people. They are not Linux Ambassadors, they are political activists. These people only care about their ideology and anyone who doesn't blindly follow it gets defamed.
I, and I would imagine many, are tired of this sort of binary thinking. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Society can't function like this.
Society can't function when people aren't allowed to make their own choices.
Why can't they choose political activism? What on earth binds them to a corporate entity and over-rides their agency?
If you want to step up and be an Ambassador, go for it! But if you think they should be compelled to do so, that's an ideological/political point of view of yours and you need to substantiate it.
What is their ideology? Being political activists? How?
These are two people stepping down from community position because they don't agree with actions/direction of the project. There is nothing bizarre about that. They posted why they don't agree and that's it.
> What is their ideology? Being political activists? How?
In today's post-truth landscape, words no longer mean their literal meaning, but are used as weapons.
The person you were replying to is very much aware that they are not literally a political activist. However, they find their positions so disagreeable that they want to label them as political activists because it creates a very specific connotation in people's heads.
It is about the furthest thing from a good faith framing that you can possibly get. But it's pretty par for course on Hacker News.
Yes, if I type Taylor Swift Showgirls I get some helpful information and a lot of links, but not her website. It isn't very different than what Google Gemini displays at the top of Google search results.
Is it a webpage? Well... it displays in a browser...
But if I type Taylor Swift, I get links to her website, instagram, facebook, etc.
Is it a webpage? Well... it displays in a browser...
I was excited to see some evidence, but if you actually read the article they're talking about flakes of silicon with less than one joule of energy reaching the surface. To break an airliner windscreen, you need an energy more like a big hammer.
> In one rare instance, the company also revealed that "a 2.5 kg piece of aluminum" found on farm grounds in Saskatchewan, Canada, was traced to a Starlink satellite.
A piece of debris of similar size to this is what I'd guess could cause the kind of damage we see in the incident involving the airliner.
So while most Starlink debris may be harmless by the time it reaches the surface, we know this doesn't always happen as expected.
And since the vast majority of reentering space debris is from Starlink satellites, that'd would be the first place I'd look.
To be totally clear, I am doubtful this is actually caused by space debris, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for it to be one of the most likely causes.
There recently has been a race to the bottom, but Fox has been false-outrage-baiting for decades before any of the other outlets did so. Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, et al. too.
And really nasty too, at least until Fox and Alex Jones lost their respective lawsuits.
No one is innocent here, but they aren’t equal (as in the same).
I've been using BBEdit since version 4. It is still the most useful app on my Mac after almost 30 years. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I could install only one app on my Mac, it would be BBEdit.
reply