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

Statement on New York Times Article

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 437 posts

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#401

Post by astrange »

yownie wrote: post #297
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>His own cite of his comment about how there's a thin line between feminism and literally Voldemort is another good example. Yeah he's edited it and seems to be going for "it's just a joke bro", but if you live in the kind of bubble where you casually condemn the whole of "feminism" as an evil then you've probably got a weirdly fascistic friend group and/or auudience. How can you honestly not see the delicious irony…

The specific people he was condemning in that essay really were pretty bad. Mostly a few women trying to advance a political agenda on an uncharitable reading of the other Scott and then a lot of men piling on in case it got them laid.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#402

Post by unityByFreedom »

afiori wrote: post #211
unityByFreedom wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've moved the goalposts. DDoS is against the law. Connecting an anonymous account to a name after confirming it is them is not. It may be libelous if the connection is not factual, but if it is a fact then that's legal to print.

This is also moving the goalpost, just because something is legal (and rightly so in this case) does not mean it is moral. My point is that doing risky activities does not mean you cannot complain when things go wrong; you can both take responsability for your decision to partecipate in that risk and criticise the system for exposing partecipants to excessive risk. In this case the criticism wasn't "the internet poli…

> just because something is legal (and rightly so in this case) does not mean it is moral.

This is a strawman. I never said it was, and I don't think naming someone who generates a large following is immoral at all.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#403

Post by unityByFreedom »

theobeers wrote: post #156
unityByFreedom wrote: post #61

I didn't perceive the NYT article as negative at all. As for naming him, that's their choice as journalists, and a risk he took with recording his thoughts online just as all of us do. I wish folks would rid themselves of the notion that the internet is anonymous or deletable. We'd all be much healthier by acknowledging the possibility that whatever you write here may be etched in stone. And if you become well known…

It’s interesting, though, that the NYT has been willing to respect the pseudonymity of other public figures in circumstances that I would consider comparable. One example is Virgil Texas, a cohost of the perennially controversial leftist podcast Chapo Trap House. Virgil Texas is not his real name—and his real name can be found with a bit of searching, as in the case of Alexander/Siskind—but the Times has stuck with t…

News outlets can make their own calls on who to name. If naming brings more readers and one outlet won't do it then that's an opportunity for another outlet, provided everything else in the article is legal.

I don't expect NYT or any outlet to be free from bias and that doesn't mean I want any of them to disappear. I want them all to thrive.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#404

Post by kodah »

sjg007 wrote: post #396
kodah wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet you clearly second guess and misunderstand my intentions I can only go off of what you put in plaintext. > The real problem is the threat vector So, explain to me the threat vector. If we have a threat vector that is substantiated by, "is Russian" then I think we have a problem. If we have a threat vector of, "Government vets first order software dependencies, but not the second order and soft dependencies of s…

I am not going to engage further with moved goalposts. It’s clear what the threat vectors are: Russian intelligence and a lack of due diligence.

I wasn't trying to move goal posts. Admittedly I might be sensitive to all the question of anything affiliated with Russia is now a conspiracy style thinking that has come from certain crowds. If I unfairly lumped you in with these folks, then I apologize.

> Russian intelligence

Someone will need to prove that there is a link between JetBrains as a company and Russian intel (aka the FSB) just as what happened with Kaspersky. I doubt that this is the case. It could certainly be a rogue employee, but that's a good amount of speculation. We've seen that the FSB has no issue hacking into companies and organizations without a mole.

> and a lack of due diligence.

I described the attack. What due diligence protects against something that injects itself during compile time and only triggers on specific events?

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#405

Post by ALittleLight »

yanderekko wrote: post #304
MrMan wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never read that blog and don’t read the NYT but I will say in response only to your comment that racists and sexists don’t seem to enjoy Star Wars like they used to. Someone should write a (hopefully thoughtful-seeming) long form rumination on the parallels between what has (allegedly) happened to Disney and what has (allegedly) happened to the NYT.

>I never read that blog and don’t read the NYT but I will say in response only to your comment that racists and sexists don’t seem to enjoy Star Wars like they used to. Most of the ire is directly at the sequel trilogy, notably the last two movies thereof. So if one of your coworkers says they hated The Last Jedi but loved The Mandalorian, then you can reasonably report them to HR for engaging in discomforting behavi…

I really hope you're joking.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#406

Post by sjg007 »

kodah wrote: post #404
sjg007 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not going to engage further with moved goalposts. It’s clear what the threat vectors are: Russian intelligence and a lack of due diligence.

I wasn't trying to move goal posts. Admittedly I might be sensitive to all the question of anything affiliated with Russia is now a conspiracy style thinking that has come from certain crowds. If I unfairly lumped you in with these folks, then I apologize. > Russian intelligence Someone will need to prove that there is a link between JetBrains as a company and Russian intel (aka the FSB) just as what happened with Ka…

The risk here is that Jetbrains has significant operations in Russia. It is likely a lot easier to get an FSB agent hired into a Russian office. And in fact the Russian government can just order and enforce cooperation. The USA does this all the time and every operation is classified. I would not expect anything less from Russia or China. The companies registration in the Czech Republic (or anywhere) does not prevent this.

Kasperkey is even more obvious because the founder was involved with the KGB even before the 2017 ban. It should never have been used. Now maybe Kasperkey's affiliation is akin to a "communist youth party" card and not necessarily a genuine affiliation but the point is that you can't trust and then verify in these situations. You have to assume that everyone is hostile unless proven safe.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#407

Post by deathlight »

dohnuts1919 wrote: post #189
mgamache wrote: post #67

Hypotheses: I am wondering if these 'hit pieces' are more like sermons of The Church of the NYT. Deriding sinners and their evil ways. They are not meant to reflect an objective reality, but hyperbole to act as a cautionary tale with enough plausible sounding details to allow the prefrontal cortex to accept them. A modern This way there be dragons Or Reefer Madness . The NYT has found it's tithing flock and they are…

Much of this behavior becomes a lot easier to understand when you realise that "wokeism" is a religion. I don't mean that ironically. John McWhorter is currently serialising a book on this topic on his own Substack, and he's far from the only person to make the observation.

Serendipitously relevant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/25/is-everything-a-religi...

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#408

Post by sellyme »

anticristi wrote: post #370
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #95

Seriously, WTF is going on with NYT. I think something has seriously gone off the deep end with their newsroom, but I feel like it must be so culturally ingrained in their newsroom now that even questioning some basic assumptions will get one vilified as a racist or sexist. One of the most recent examples that really struck me was NYT's article about why they decided to capitalize Black, but not White, in their paper…

As a non-native English speaker and European, I find these "minor language tweaks" pure distraction. I mean, one could raise taxes and offer quality free education to everyone -- like many European countries already do. One could also enforce more wage transparency to fight systematic salary discrimination. But it's so much cheaper to capitalize one letter. white Black There! Now everyone knows I am actively fighting…

> I mean, one could raise taxes and offer quality free education to everyone

In fairness I'm not sure the New York Times really has the authority to do that.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#409

Post by kortilla »

john_moscow wrote: post #126
kortilla wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in most of the cases you are priced out of property ownership This is only true for a selection of coastal cities. The property ownership ladder is still available all over the US to the lower middle class and up. The narrative you are parroting that this is because of corporations is another distraction designed to keep people from actually addressing housing issues with large legal reforms crushing NIMBYism. Take…

>The property ownership ladder is still available all over the US to the lower middle class and up. It is available outside the coastal cities if you have a coastal city salary. That kind of defeats the purpose. >Take as much money as you want from Google and Apple, it won’t change the fact that there are only enough houses in the Bay Area for about half of the people that live there. There's enough space in the U.S.…

> It is available outside the coastal cities if you have a coastal city salary. That kind of defeats the purpose.

This is false, why would you think this? My youngest sister makes $70k and bought a 3br/2ba house with a 2 car garage for $215k that’s 20 mins from where she works. That is in just a random medium city in the Midwest.

I have another friend who works in San Antonio. Got his house for $300k and makes $90k as a SWE.

Housing is seriously just an isolated problem in particular hot spots. Unless you need to be there, get the fuck out. The governments are broken.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#410

Post by kortilla »

jhbadger wrote: post #400
kodah wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are very misinformed. Austin is not "new". It was at competition with Silicon Valley and used to be referred to as Silicon Hill. A lot of hardware manufacturing happened in Texas. At some point, between favorable business laws and Google starting large scale recruiting events it sucked a lot of the talent out of places like Texas. So your statement is more accurately framed as, "Austin is finally recovering as a…

I think the modern attraction of Austin has a bit more to do with its reputation as a "cool" city with its music scene than its history of chip manufacturing.

It’s funny how all of people crowding in will price out the entire crowd that makes it cool.
Post reply on HN