81–90 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it probably means the userbase has grown too much and HN needs a bit more policing in order to stay on topic.
From HN guidlines If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.) Your account is 178days old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not making any sense. Let me break it down for you: you made a claim about the sub-conscience of a group of hundreds of millions of people. You've supplied zero evidence. You've cited no scientific studies, nothing. There's plenty, actually. Just walk around any street in any major Arab city/capital and ask the people Let's assume everyone says yes...so what? What does that tell us about a sub-conscious sense…
It's not a scientific claim; it's impossible to provide a scientific evidence about any sociological claim. However, I believe my claim is not without evidence; there's plenty of evidence for it. You just have to be a part of the culture. You do have to interpret it charitably, though. If you interpret it as "Every single Arab person has this ideology", then of course it's a false claim. It's not too different from t…
On that we agree. But its also not an empirical claim: it is something that exists outside the realm of evidence.
it's impossible to provide a scientific evidence about any sociological claim.
Do the sociologists know that?
If you reject my claim about the existence of an "Arab brotherhood" spirit, then you're making a much more substantial claim than I am: you're claiming Arabs don't care about each other.
No, you are very confused. You are the one making a claim. You are the one failing to provide any evidence for it. I'm not claiming that no such spirit exists: I'm pointing out that your claim is garbage because there is literally no evidence behind it. I don't have to prove anything because I'm not making a claim. All I have to do is show that your claim has zero evidence behind it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The host guy back in the studio pointed out the journalist on the phone had been impartial up until now, and basically apologised for her expressing her opinion. Really? I haven't been following the English Aljazeera, but the Arabic Al-Jazeera was not impartial at all throughout the revolution (which I don't mind).
It seems like the Arabic Al-Jazeera is more like the Fox News of the Arab world, while English Al-Jazeera is trying really hard to be more like BBC World.
The BBC's Jon Leyne in Cairo said the announcement caught everyone by surprise, and all over the city drivers honked their horns and people fired guns into the air.
But the army takeover looks very much like a military coup, our correspondent adds.
The constitution has been breached, he says, because officially it should be the speaker of parliament who takes over, not the army leadership.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst. So far the Egyptian military have been on the right side of this situation but we have no guarantees what happens next. This is the end of the beginning, not the end.
Mubarak handing power to the army probably means that the regime lives on, Mubarak's just not in charge of it anymore. Egypt's issues aren't settled now, this is only a step and it remains to be seen if real, true, democratic change is going to happen.
True, this is only step 1. Torturer in chief also needs to step down, emergency lifted, and free elections have to be held. Look forward to steps 2, 3, 4.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/2011271...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would point out technology and the Internet played an important if not vital role in the events of Egypt and Tunisia.
Technology and the Internet play a vital role in pretty much everything these days. What will HN cover next - a Tea Party rally, if it was announced on Twitter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would point out technology and the Internet played an important if not vital role in the events of Egypt and Tunisia.
Technology and the Internet play a vital role in pretty much everything these days. What will HN cover next - a Tea Party rally, if it was announced on Twitter?
(and, no, me checking my email this morning is not also a "historic event" ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what the guidelines actually say: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This event is covered on TV, moreover it is covered on other sites which are more mainstream such as reddit, digg etc. I come here to read tech and startup news, this is not something I want to read about on HN. It is also a shame that users who try to question the relevancy of HN submissions get downvoted. Even though it has more than 100 upvotes it is still not relevant to what this site is about. Unless the goal i…
I think that those who question the relevancy of submissions such as these deserve an answer that is more than "Actually, this is all about hacking!" I did not upvote this submission but here are my reasons for not flagging it:
1. This is likely not a controversial issue among HN readers, major ideological disagreements that might result into insults and people screaming at each other are unlikely. A constructive discussion is likely.
2. The developments in Egypt had no overwhelming presence on HN during the last weeks. I think that frequency and not only the topic matters. This submission would definitely be inappropriate if Egypt had been on the top of HN all the time over the last few weeks but that hasn't been the case. Occasional interesting off-topic diversions have been a part of HN for as long as I can remember. We have to be vigilant so that they don't overwhelm HN but they are occasionally ok.
3. The developments in Egypt are serious and not superficial or phony, worthy of a constructive discussion.
The difficult part is always what comes after a revolution. Having the military in charge isn't necessarily a good thing, and whether Egypt does get a democratic government will now depend upon how the military behaves.
Not to mention that a democratic government, in itself, doesn't guarantee anything - large-scale corruption and incompetence are still a very real possibility. Still, hopefully a step in the right direction - more options are now available to the Egyptian people.
No matter how awesome the new regime is, I doubt they can fix this. Sad fact: many of Egypt's problems are inflicted by the people on themselves, not by Mubarak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enough users upvoted it to get it in spot #1 on the front page. The userbase thus finds it relevant to them.
> Enough users upvoted it to get it in spot #1 on the front page. Well, now I'm curious to see if pg manually shoves it off again, like he did with the earlier Very Popular Egypt Submission.