Live data from Hacker News

Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

tomscott.com

421–430 of 440 posts

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#421
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Do they have a public healthcare system? Nope. What sort of society doesn't look after it's own? Do they have police who have a duty to save you? Nope. That alone is just an absolute shit show. What sort of country says the police have no obligation to protect you? Only to show up and solve the crime once it's happened? What sort of society doesn't look after it's own? I could carry on but it's a bit pointles…

You don't get to declare by fiat what constitutes a society, or what counts as "taking care of its own". Nor do you get to just help yourself to the assumption that other countries, which claim to have things like "a public healthcare system" and "police who have a duty to save you", actually have those things. As for "well documented", if you believe what the media tells you about anything, let alone the US, you are…

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the moral of this story is you taking a single part massively out of context. And the fire department didn't go out. So they wouldn't have known if someone's life was at risk. So stop you're nonsense.

> And the fire department didn't go out. Again, more misinformation! They did go out, and made sure the fire didn't spread off the property. If anybody had been imperiled, the firefighters would have helped. FFS, it's right in that article: > They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said. And if the firefighters…

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#423
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, more misinformation! No, they went out after the neighbour phoned up because of a fire on their property. Anyone who has fully read the article will know that. So stop your nonsense. "Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee."

So the fire department was contacted, did not hear of any lives at risk, and did not show up. What an entirely reasonable response to getting a service request from someone who has not established a SLA with your company. Do you personally work at a company? If so, I demand you to help me fix a problem I'm having. I haven't paid you, but that shouldn't matter. What's that? You won't help me? But you helped my competi…

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#424
post #319
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trains in Xinjiang compare very favourably with those in the US. The media paints a very one-sided picture of what life is like there; not to defend the CCP's awful actions, but if the way certain communities in St Louis get treated were reported the same way...

>Xinjiang compare very favourably with those in the US https://www.chinahighlights.com/china-trains/urumqi-lanzhou-... LOL, keep spreading that propaganda comrade!

You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

You've unfortunately been posting unsubstantive and flamebait comments in other places too. Would you please stop? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, so we eventually have to ban accounts that do it.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#425
post #198

Even with this information included. I think the moral of the story is America has some very serious third-world problems. The reason things like this go on in America and not in any other developed country is that Americans just accept it. "They didn't pay, so they die." Here is how much they accept it, firefighters literally stood and watched a building burn down instead of playing with their toys. Not only that, t…

The solution is that the government steps in and says "No, you must ". And American culture does not like when government says "must". But in the rest of the world, we act like grown ups and accept that sometimes, it's perfectly okay.

Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#426
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is that the government steps in and says "No, you must ". And American culture does not like when government says "must". But in the rest of the world, we act like grown ups and accept that sometimes, it's perfectly okay.

> And American culture does not like when government says "must". Except when it's about treating everyone like terrorists in airports, I presume.

Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#427
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government doesn't always work as well as it should, but you have the power to change that. You can vote for changes and hold your elected officials accountable. That's the strength of government solutions. You and those around you come together to vote on what needs to be done, how it should be done, and who is responsible for overseeing that. I also have family who worked in social services and they always wished t…

> You can vote for changes and hold your elected officials accountable. That's the strength of government solutions. No, it's the weakness of government solutions. If I want to help people, I can start a private charity and go help people. If I want to government to help people, I have to get a majority of the country to vote for politicians that will make that happen--assuming there even are any. > You and those aro…

> If you believe people should be helped, you can go help them.

I could, but how is that better? If there's a natural disaster on the other side of the country and I can see that people need help should I immediately pack up my car with water bottles, food, and blankets and drive for three or four days to "go help them?"

I have responsibilities here too. I have a job and a family who need me here. Should I just leave them at a moment's notice? And not just me, you want everyone to do this? Have thousands of people drop everything they are responsible for to drive however many days/hours it takes to "go help"? Getting to the people who need the help in a timely manner would be hard enough, but imagine the roads being blocked by all the traffic at a time when emergency responders are trying to work. Clearly my efforts are not better directed at helping people myself.

It's stupidly inefficient for everyone to respond to people in need by going to help them. It's sure as hell not how it's "supposed to work" and that's why we've set up the response systems that we have. We need to depend on others to do the helping so that we can contribute to their efforts while still living our lives and without wasting massive amounts of time and resources causing new problems.

Because we're stuck depending on others to help collect needed supplies and funding, coordinate with local emergency response teams, and disseminate whatever aid is needed the fewer organizations we task with doing all that the better and more efficiently it all works.

> than trying to use government force to do it.

"The government" isn't forcing anyone to help people. It's your neighbors, my neighbors, and everyone around and between us choosing to help others. We decided we want state and federal aid for people who need it. It wasn't even a decision we made one time, we continuously decide that it's the best way to handle aid. If we ever change our minds and decide that everyone packing up their cars and rushing in to personally deliver assistance is preferable we can vote to stop it. No one is forcing us, it was our choice. You might not agree with it, but that's just life in a democracy. Collectively we may choose things you don't personally care for, and thank goodness because it sounds like you haven't really thought through your "Everyone go help whoever they think needs it directly" strategy at all.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#428
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slavery was also considered above-board at one point, so... It was also perfectly constitutional[0], hence the need for that 13th amendment. And that civil war thing. As it turns out, the constitution kind of sucks[0], it has a lot of problems with it. Fewer than it did in the past, but we aren't quite at the end of history just yet. You're going to need a better complaint than 'it's unconstitutional', as this is p…

stop tilting at windmills, the question is whether or not the government can force you to pay for a __PRIVATE__ service just for __EXISTING__ within the borders of the US. There is __NO PRECEDENT__ for this. The closest you can get are things like car insurance where you're required to carry insurance in order to drive on US roads. You can choose not to drive, you cannot choose to "not exist". That puts this into an…

I'm entirely willing to accept that it's a bad law (It is, for multiple reasons - unfortunately, the situation without it is even worse), I'm simply drawing the line at claims that it's an illegal law (It's not, it's been pretty thoroughly litigated).

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#429
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really weird reading this, it makes me realize that motivations and rationalizations of people who joined Jan 6 and similar events are really nothing new under the sun.

The motivations of people who joined Jan 6 are very simple: they thought they had been disenfranchised because of unprecedented anomalies during vote counting on election day, which their opposition made no effort to explain.

What exactly would the opposition have to have done for you to not say they made no effort to explain?

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#430
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? The whole of medieval europe swarms with stories of surplus children send to fend for themselves as servants and workers abroad. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwabenkinder Whole areas exported there population as soldiers, mercenaries and mining people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard Most of them were like the taliban in afghanistan, interlocked in eternal holy wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirt…

> The english soldiers fighting in the independence war against the americans, were partially germans, sold by in debted aristoctrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker_(Prussia) What do Junkers in Prussia have to do with the Hessian mercenaries who fought in the war of independence? It was Frederick II who leased the army of Hesse-Kassel to the British. He was not some random indebted aristocrat but rather the ru…

>Not (as you make it sound) random peasants conscripts sold off to pay of some debts.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldatenhandel_unter_Landgraf_...

Read the Kantonspflicht part. They were drafted peasants.

>Yes. The only escape for peasants in the 1800's to >1930s was to go on pilgrimages.

Read old newspapers and alamanachs. They regularly locked vagabunds up into workhouses and the "euthanization" in the camps starting 1930 was just a continuation of that policy. Religous pilgrimage, entering servitude (sailor on ships etc.) or being rich was the only way to be able to migrate over long distances.Of course there were the usual religous purges, which pushed parts of the population to migrate to "safe havens" in the local klein-staaterei.

https://wiki.genealogy.net/Franken_J%C3%BCdisch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugenotten#Hugenotten_in_Deuts...

>The crusader knights surely promised the conquered lands to peasants who would follow them

I was wrong there. It was mostly greek-orthodox and armeniens. If you read the sources, the whole crusade affairs were a mess, regularly bogging down in local warfare and criminal activity along the road.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BCrstentum_Antiochia#Geog...

Post reply on HN