Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#141

Post by grzm »

dang wrote: post #138
tossracct12467 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this undersells the social good Google is doing today. They designed, built, and maintain top shelf software products that are powering the world. They're giving them away for free. And unlike their competitors, they're not limited to running on Google platforms. Tensorflow, Go, Android, Angular, Dart, Kuberbetes, Chromium are some of the most well known. https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects A d…

Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts; we ban those. HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum.

I think you meant Pseudonymity when you wrote Anonymity.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#142

Post by jimmywanger »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #116
rak00n wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google actually banned payday loan ads from their network [1]. I couldn't take your anger seriously after reading that line. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...

As it happens, you did not read the article. If you did, you'd see that "Google will not display ads from lenders who charge annual interest rates of 36 percent or more in the United States." And the parent post is talking about loans with 35% APR still being quite predatory. [1]Non-AMP link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11...

> loans with 35% APR still being quite predatory.

How is that? 35% APR for short term unsecured credit seems predatory, but it is well in line with what most major credit card companies offer.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#143

Post by jimmywanger »

tluyben2 wrote: post #94
city41 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we hold Trump responsible for that, then don't we hold cigarette companies responsible for lung cancer? Weapons companies for murders? BitTorrent for piracy? Soda and fast food companies for obesity and diabetes? Where does it end?

Sadly, humans in general seem to need that kind of policing as they just cannot help themselves.

> they just cannot help themselves

Said every despot in the history of the world. Once you start trying to save people from their baser instincts by restricting what you can and cannot do by force, you are infantilizing them.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#144

Post by grzm »

jimmywanger wrote: post #143
tluyben2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, humans in general seem to need that kind of policing as they just cannot help themselves.

> they just cannot help themselves Said every despot in the history of the world. Once you start trying to save people from their baser instincts by restricting what you can and cannot do by force, you are infantilizing them.

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, ensuring food is free of contaminants (rather than relying on people to read the label and decide), ensuring that pharmaceuticals and other procedures are safe (rather than relying on people to shop around and decide for themselves), building codes to prevent homes and buildings from catching fire due to cheaper, shoddy wiring. People's baser instincts will often not drive them to make decisions in their own best interest—even if you were to ask them themselves—in the short term.

"Once you start" implies drawing a line that any kind of regulation is infantilizing them. There are some people who think that this is wrong. However, many more understand that there are some forms of regulation that help not only society as a whole but individuals themselves. Yes, there are questions as to the degree and kind of regulation. And reasonable people can discuss this. And these people are not asking for despots.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#145

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mac01021 wrote: post #131
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have all the access to your congressman you like. Just don't take money for doing it.

It's not always that cut and dry, though. Say you're one of the world's foremost experts on the economics of asteroid mining, and are employed by an asteroid mining company for a tremendous salary. Suppose you decide that your industry as a whole will be both more productive and fairer to the world at large if you are able to spend a bunch of time educating senators about the intricacies of your field and the effects…

You have all the same problems with prohibiting bribery of public officials. The governor gives a contract to Foo Corp and Foo Corp hires the governor's brother for $5M/year, is that corruption?

The conclusion to draw from this is not "oh well, guess we might as well legalize bribery."

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#146

Post by jimmywanger »

grzm wrote: post #144
jimmywanger wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they just cannot help themselves Said every despot in the history of the world. Once you start trying to save people from their baser instincts by restricting what you can and cannot do by force, you are infantilizing them.

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, ensuring food is free of contaminants (rather than relying on people to read the label and decide), ensuring that pharmaceuticals and other procedures are safe (rather than relying on people to shop around and decide for themselves), building codes to prevent homes and buildings from catching fire due to cheaper, shoddy wiring. People's baser instincts will often not drive them to make…

> "Once you start" implies drawing a line that any kind of regulation is infantilizing them.

I never said infantilizing was a bad thing. Most people aren't really able to make the optimum decision in their lives about most areas.

For instance, some of the most proficient programmers I know who make otherwise good decisions neglect their diet and exercise.

Should we enforce mandatory vegetable and exercise regimens for them? On a more prosaic level, should we limit the size and shape of knives that private citizens should be allowed to own because of violence concerns?

Realizing that there is nothing qualitatively different about these measures from the measures being described is a first step on evaluating all measures of this sort.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#147

Post by DBNO »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #116
rak00n wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google actually banned payday loan ads from their network [1]. I couldn't take your anger seriously after reading that line. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...

As it happens, you did not read the article. If you did, you'd see that "Google will not display ads from lenders who charge annual interest rates of 36 percent or more in the United States." And the parent post is talking about loans with 35% APR still being quite predatory. [1]Non-AMP link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11...

Hi, it looks there is a factual dispute about the linked article. I think I might be able to add some value to this conversation (but that's of course for you to decide).

It appears the parent poster is arguing Google did ban [all payday loans] while you are arguing that the article says Google did not ban [all payday loans], but instead only banned [loans with interest rates >=36%].

My viewpoint: The article says both points, i.e. Google banned [all payday loans] and Google also banned [all loans (i.e. of the non-payday variety) with interest rates >=36%]

Evidence / Recitation from article:

"...In addition to the broad payday loan ad ban, Google will not display ads from lenders who charge annual interest rates of 36 percent or more in the United States. The same standards will apply to sites that serve as middlemen who connect distressed borrowers to those lenders..."

"...Google announced Wednesday that it will ban all payday loan ads from its site..."

As seen from the first above recitation, the words "in addition to" appears to mean that two separate bans have been enacted: The first ban is for any loan classified as a payday loan. That means a payday loan of any interest rate (i.e. 35%, 25%, even 3%) will be banned. The second ban is for a loan of any type where the interest rate is >= 36%.

Hope that helps, thanks for your time : )

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#148

Post by wsh91 »

danjoc wrote: post #133
wsh91 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to anyone else's experiences here, but your cynicism seems unwarranted based on mine.

You can wear your heart on your sleeve, but you won't win a hand of poker doing it. Refusing to participate when there are plenty of people who can replace you accomplishes nothing. Appearing to go along while sabotaging the process is far more effective. You've helped no one by proudly showing your hand. If anything, you've shown you aren't willing to do much of anything beyond sign petitions online.

You have no idea what I do besides having signed that petition. That's pretty rude. (It's also not true.)

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#149

Post by danjoc »

wsh91 wrote: post #148
danjoc wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can wear your heart on your sleeve, but you won't win a hand of poker doing it. Refusing to participate when there are plenty of people who can replace you accomplishes nothing. Appearing to go along while sabotaging the process is far more effective. You've helped no one by proudly showing your hand. If anything, you've shown you aren't willing to do much of anything beyond sign petitions online.

You have no idea what I do besides having signed that petition. That's pretty rude. (It's also not true.)

You're right. I don't know anything about you. I know Snowden. I know Manning. I know who they are because of how they operated. Most people give themselves away before they could possibly make a difference. I'll never know them.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#150

Post by tluyben2 »

jimmywanger wrote: post #146
grzm wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, ensuring food is free of contaminants (rather than relying on people to read the label and decide), ensuring that pharmaceuticals and other procedures are safe (rather than relying on people to shop around and decide for themselves), building codes to prevent homes and buildings from catching fire due to cheaper, shoddy wiring. People's baser instincts will often not drive them to make…

> "Once you start" implies drawing a line that any kind of regulation is infantilizing them. I never said infantilizing was a bad thing. Most people aren't really able to make the optimum decision in their lives about most areas. For instance, some of the most proficient programmers I know who make otherwise good decisions neglect their diet and exercise. Should we enforce mandatory vegetable and exercise regimens fo…

You are right and that is a difficult problem. When I was younger (15-20 years ago) I was against any government control; now that I met many people and read many books and lived a few decades more, I think the government should govern far more than it does; basically I became very sceptical about the ability of many people to run their lives in almost every way. I have no clue (as I am that programmer who does not exercise enough; diet is good though) how to have free people mixed with a despot(meaning the absolute ruler, not abusive ruler)-like control without it running into abuse fast. But yes, I would not be opposed forced exercise regimes for people like me. I do not believe that kind of freedom is good for me or anyone else. Besides the basic concept of freedom which great thing, but then you get into what you say; what do you and what don't you enforce.
Post reply on HN