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

Jimmy Carter has died

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 879 posts

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#621

Post by mmooss »

genman wrote: post #526
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was that coup Eisenhower OK'd in 1953. I can see how Carter not supporting another coup would be taken poorly.

And yet he supported a coup. He was just too "blind" to see which one. And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness.

If you are talking about the 1953 coup, I've never heard that description. Everything I've read says the UK, with some degree of US support, overthrew the government.

> And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness.

That's exactly a coup. The people who conduct coups - and other crimes and violations - always have a smooth justification. Russia is protecting Russians in Ukraine! Hitler needed some 'breathing room', etc.

If the head of state is incapable, then the next civilian in line can take over. No advanced democracy has ever needed the military's help for such a situation.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#622

Post by mmooss »

fargle wrote: post #567
mmooss wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that make a lot of sense? Is there a large untapped electorate elsewhere on the spectrum? And more importantly, is there any evidence?

the center. you know, the existence of which just changed the course of the latest election...

Why do you say that? Where is the evidence? Otherwise, these are just circular claims, unchecked by reality.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#623

Post by mmooss »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #549
mmooss wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that make a lot of sense? Is there a large untapped electorate elsewhere on the spectrum? And more importantly, is there any evidence?

You're asking for a lot of evidence on what's overall the opinions of an entire country. Something entire electorial campaigns apparently struggle to do despite their funding ballooning. You have to do that research yourself, that isn't a question answered within HN's character limit. But Bernie's popularity along the youth probably was not just some trend, to help you start.

There's lots of research on election results and voting patterns.

> You have to do that research yourself

It's really on you or whoever is making the claim.

> that isn't a question answered within HN's character limit

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Who voted for what and why?

If you don't know, then these claims are fabrications.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#624

Post by mmooss »

fargle wrote: post #572
johnnyanmac wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking for a lot of evidence on what's overall the opinions of an entire country. Something entire electorial campaigns apparently struggle to do despite their funding ballooning. You have to do that research yourself, that isn't a question answered within HN's character limit. But Bernie's popularity along the youth probably was not just some trend, to help you start.

> You're asking for a lot of evidence on what's overall the opinions of an entire country we literally just had a referendum on that. moving further left from 2016-2020-2024 lost voters. how pissed off do people have to be to have that result? that implies, very strongly, to me that there is a huge segment in the center-left to center-right that is really irritated right now. not bernie's group for sure. although he…

I haven't heard anyone say that Harris 2024 was further left than Biden 2020. Biden 2020 was probably the furthest left of the campaigns you list, and won. Clinton was more centrist and Harris moved back toward the center, and both lost.

Also, it's hard to imagine a centrist Dem voting for Trump in any circumstances.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#625

Post by yyyk »

pfdietz wrote: post #454
yyyk wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it could be argued real work on Climate Change would have begun in 1981 as opposed to where we are now That's a common myth. 70s energy policy was a result of the oil crisis, not environment concerns. Sometimes the result was conductive to the environment (e.g. efficiency increases), sometimes it was less so (various US gov research into more polluting alternatives like synthetic oil or shale oil), and sometimes it…

> (like Carter banning nuclear waste reprocessing which set back that entire industry) How did this set back the whole industry? Experience since then, even in France, is that reprocessing is uneconomical. Understand that Carter's executive order was rescinded by Reagan, and yet reprocessing has gone nowhere since then in the US.

Because the waste issue became a problem for every new commercial project, and well, waste is rather unfortunate by itself. Reprocessing remained in France and UK, so it mustn't have been that uneconomical - I guess that the investment/approvals required to open a new site were too much.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#626

Post by eesmith »

maratc wrote: post #259
eesmith wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"developing a similar system"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#R... says: > In 2014, a declassified CIA paper stated that "In response to SDI, Moscow threatened a variety of military countermeasures in lieu of developing a parallel missile defense system". The Soviets had very capable scientists who could figure out - like Bethe in the US - that SDI was not feasible, and the easy work-aroun…

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear: I’m not advocating for this viewpoint (nor against it, actually); I’m just explaining how this “line of thinking” usually goes, since that was a question from GP.

To my understanding, the costs involved in the Soviet response to SDI were small, and had very little effect on national spending, so I don't see how that's important enough to mention. Surely the falling price of oil was more significant, yes? I'll bet the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan was also more expensive.

Since gadders' comment is flagged, I don't know the fuller context.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#627

Post by hnews30dec2024 »

RIP, although I’m sure his intentions were good, the majority of Iranians believe he is the catalyst that brought in the islamic regime and much of the misery in the middle east as a result. Millions displaced, millions more living under authoritarian regimes and war.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#629

Post by RC_ITR »

wistlo wrote: post #231

"A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people,” Mr. Carter said. Reagan removed the panels in 1986." All you need to know about the respective legacies of Carter and Reagan.

Notably, the 32 panels Carter installed were thermal water heating panels.

This means that there was no innovative technology in them, and they represent a technology path that is significantly less space efficient and less useful vs PVs.

It is also worth noting (especially on a platform that believes in American excellence as much as HN does) that modern PVs really trace their history back to Martin Green, who did most of his work with Australian Japanese and Chinese researchers (since he was in Australia), so funding the projects of American scientists might have not yielded the best results anyway.

So in many ways, you could argue that Carter’s solar focus was symbolically great, but stronger US subsidies would just make the US look like Germany - expensive and inefficient PVs that are increasingly becoming a liability (though bless them and their utility customers for powering through and continuing to install new, more efficient equipment).

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#630

Post by foota »

silisili wrote: post #180
UncleOxidant wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you compare Carter with the guy who's going to take office next month it shows how far we've fallen as a country. The previous era was already passing since about 2016, but with the death of Carter it seems like that era has died with him and it just feels very depressing.

While I agree with the general sentiment, I think the same could have been said regardless of which candidate won. It feels like the left moved left, the right moved right, and instead of catering to moderates, threatening them to pick a side. Said another way, I think a young Jimmy Carter type candidate would have wiped the floor with either side this election.

There was an interesting article in the NYT recently by Nate Cohn (formerly of 538) on the realignment that seems to be happening in politics. It was an interesting read: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/25/upshot/trump-era-republic...
Post reply on HN