Live data from Hacker News

Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

arrl.org

261–270 of 312 posts

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is that little affair from 1765 to 1783 that gets generally good press, though Gets good press, but, compared to the Commonwealth countries, it's not clear it was really necessary or beneficial.

Are you talking about a territory like Bermuda, or the independent Commonwealth countries that were inspired by the Revolutionary War?

He probably means Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

When you say countries inspired by the revolutionary war, you probably don't mean "North Vietnam."

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people are just as smart as you are. For this to be true, you would have to be below average. That's just half of everyone.

*below median ;)

The average and the median are identical for a normal distribution.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#263
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the purpose of those types of questions is to make it easy to deport you for lying on the immigration paperwork.

And some immigration lawyers can perhaps successfully argue that it was due to sincere change of heart - no intent at the time of answering the question. /s

I've been through the immigration process to get a green card. The questions I remember answering are all about your past and not so much about what you intend to do in the future.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

Yes?

Most people fall into a bucket in the middle of 'generally smart'. You're probably in there. Most people are in there. Few people are 'super smart' to the right of you and few people are 'idiots' to the left of you. This is a 'normal distribution', with most people in the peak you can see in the linked graph, and few people either side in the low parts.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These people are idiots. I think 'these people are idiots' is an easy thing to think but almost always the wrong thing. Few people are idiots. Most people are just as smart as you are. More likely, these people fundamentally aren't looking at the situation like you are. Probably, they don't care what you, or the police, or the FBI, or anyone else, think about what they're doing and don't care how they're being trac…

> Few people are idiots. > Most people are just as smart as you are. Well which is it?

Both - I'm not sure what you're asking. Most people are 'reasonably smart'. Few people are 'less than reasonably smart'. Those two things aren't contradictory.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#266
post #27

> The Bureau has become aware of discussions on social media platforms suggesting that certain radio services regulated by the Commission may be an alternative to social media platforms for groups to communicate and coordinate future activities. “Stop discussing plans for a revolution on amateur radio bands like if we aren’t listening to them, we are, stop believing everything they say on Facebook. I mean, we do enco…

Presumably they would have a 2nd amendment suit if they were censored for the content of their speech by the agency that runs the amateur radio system, right?

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

Yes?

Your statement might be true if intelligence was say, uniformly distributed.

But intelligence (like a lot of natural phenomena) is closer to a normal distribution.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>loot the Capitol Then they should be shot on sight. The only reason they weren't fired upon is the color of their skin.

This attitude really saddens me. We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were. Thankfully, this is the attitude I have heard from most BLM leaders.

>We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were.

When we do that, we still get shot by the police and nothing changes. Maybe if white people face consequences for once, things will change.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it does have a simple explanation, just different from yours. I think that they assumed they wouldn't be punished, because they never have been. Cops don't shoot white protestors.

There's a corpse in a morgue that'd like to disagree with you.

Now compare with a list of people with dark skin who were executed by police. Looking at these two numbers it's quite reasonable to conclude white people don't face consequences.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most people are just as smart as you are. These people don't believe in objective reality (Biden won the election and there was no meaningful voter or election fraud) and I'm having trouble thinking of a definition of "idiot" where something like that doesn't qualify.

> These people don't believe in objective reality Again... maybe they don't care instead of they don't believe? They may tell you they don't believe but what's not necessarily what they really think. 'They're just an idiot' is lazy analysis and dangerous. Very few people are idiots. Most people are lucid. It's dangerous because you're giving yourself a reason to be less cautious (how dangerous can they be - they're i…

>Whenever you think someone’s an idiot stop and think if it’s their modus operandi to make you think that.

These people aren't fifth dimensional chess masters. They're angry, and much of their anger is based on legitimate economic grievances. Instead of actually addressing that though, they fall back on the much easier conclusion that people with dark skin are to blame. The media plays a part in all this, but individuals need to take responsibility and these particular individuals never will. They don't trust anyone who seems "intellectual", so there's literally nothing I could say that would get through to them. Calling them idiots and moving on has the same end result for the target, but will convince a bystander more readily. If instead I engage with them in a debate, that automatically validates their (frankly insane) point of view, which confuses bystanders into thinking that maybe there is something to this "election fraud" nonsense. Deep down most of these folks are just terrible people who need to feel superior to others. Trump and the rest of the Republican party give that to them. They don’t want economic security, they want superiority over others. Until they change from within, they're going to continue to be "idiots".

In conclusion, why is it always "the left" that has to do the actual hard work in situations like these?

Post reply on HN