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

Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 249 posts

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#171

Post by _DeadFred_ »

o11c wrote: post #164
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACA is just more of the same? Are you kidding me? Do you know how many lives that changed? No more pre-existing conditions? Literally before that if you lost your insurance you just died.

For the majority of people, the ACA just meant "insurance has an excuse to raise premiums without end (far more than the number of new people covered)". There was some corporate trickery involved, but that doesn't matter to the individual who's paying more.

The majority of people are very grateful of the coverage. The ACA is very popular if you call it something different (to move away from the propaganda) and explain the details.

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#172

Post by amazingamazing »

nico wrote: post #168
amazingamazing wrote: post #87

I wonder about the purpose of many of these actions. Since they’re done via EOs they can easily be reversed.

If this continues, it won’t be easy to track and revert 4 years of EOs. And it will be impossible to undo all the consequences

They’re literally all on the White House site in order.

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#173

Post by smitty1e »

llamaimperative wrote: post #129
smitty1e wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an excellent going-in position. Given sufficient complexity and overlap, frictions arise. Hence all of the allegations and lawsuits and appeals and so forth. The voters are the ultimate judge, and typically end up with a government that reflects them, warts and all.

There’s nothing complex about “IGs cannot be dismissed without 30 days notice to Congress.” And no, judges are judges. That’s why they’re called that.

I guess that I'd be closer to your position if the last eight years of...however you characterize it...hadn't gone down.

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#174

Post by codr7 »

jmye wrote: post #135
codr7 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Yeah, the fact that she can barely speak full sentences surely had nothing to do with it. This is a bald lie, and is wildly unbecoming of discussion on this site. But it’s also a hilarious assertion in the face of literally anything Trump has ever tried to say out loud.

I'm just going to go ahead and trust my own experience more than your expert opinion on that, and I'd advice anyone to do the same.

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#175

Post by llamaimperative »

amazingamazing wrote: post #169
phonon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? A. he already broke the law. The point in notifying in advance is for Congress to push back if they think the reason was inappropriate, as Inspector Generals are the watchdogs that report to Congress. B. Do you really think he had "the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer" for 17 simultaneous firings days into his administration?

[flagged]

I’m just imagining you seeing a bank robbery and it’s hilarious.

Bystander: “call the police, he’s breaking the law!”

You: “You’re letting your mind rot. He broke the law? What’s the docket number of the case where the judge says this?”

/r/iamverysmart content here.

Anyway, the law is crystal clear. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#176

Post by codr7 »

kevstev wrote: post #128
codr7 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't live in the US, but I got the impression that a lot of people actually saw positive change in their lives in the first round, which is a pretty good reason to want more. Do you honestly believe your news is being spun any less?

Yes I read high quality news sources- the WSJ, NYTimes, foreign affairs and a few others like the national review and mother Jones from time to time. I hear this argument a lot and my issues with Trump were from the primary source- his own words and tweets. The economy was already humming when Trump first entered office and despite his best efforts it continued to do so through his term.

And you honestly believe these "special" news sources are not spun to at least the same degree.

I think you have a few nasty surprises coming up.

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#177

Post by Terr_ »

khazhoux wrote: post #126
Terr_ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people spoke very clearly [that] they wanted this. > [Nonvoters] were "OK" with whatever others decided. Those are not the same thing! Stop contradicting yourself in order to sanewash Trump.

Not a contradiction at all. And this isn't about "sanewashing" Trump. There is a set of people eligible to vote. There is a set of people who do vote. Anyone in the first set who chooses not be in the second set, is no longer included in statements about What The People Want. You snooze, you lose. The time to say whether you want or don't want a President is in November. You stay quiet then, you don't get to complain…

You're saying that 7 people could vote with the rest of the nations staying home, and then when Bob wins with 3/7 votes, I can say: "Look, the people spoke very clearly that they wanted Bob!"

No, that'd be frickin' insane, since:

1. Basically none of the "the people" ever "spoke" at all.

2. Even when non-voters somehow aren't "the people", there's nothing remotely "clear" Bob winning with a minority.

The moral fiber of nonvoters is irrelevant, this is about how you exaggerated a weak signal to the point of outright falsehood.

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#178

Post by llamaimperative »

smitty1e wrote: post #173
llamaimperative wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing complex about “IGs cannot be dismissed without 30 days notice to Congress.” And no, judges are judges. That’s why they’re called that.

I guess that I'd be closer to your position if the last eight years of...however you characterize it...hadn't gone down.

?

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#179

Post by khazhoux »

takeda wrote: post #163
kevstev wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my big struggle with all of this. His first term I felt America was duped by a con man so protested and made a fuss on social media. Americans saw the first four years and astonishingly decided they wanted more of it, by a decent margin. So while I absolutely hate what is going on right now this seems to be what the people wanted. I question each day whether that needs to be respected or we should resist. I a…

Or election were hacked, but not the way you think. Social media was weaponized and turned into a tool that manipulates people's view of the reality. Each person gets a personalized feed that presses their buttons to think certain way. For example with war in gaza. If for example you were pro Israeli, you will see content that Harris was siding with Hamas, and trump actually was the most Israel friendly candidate. If…

> Social media was weaponized and turned into a tool that manipulates people's view of the reality

I really dislike this argument. It shifts responsibility from the voters to evil nebulous puppet-masters. I reject that. At some point, you have to accept that people can think and make decisions for themselves.

Re: Phyllis Fong, who was investigating Neuralink, "forcefully removed "

#180

Post by Terr_ »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #148
jjtheblunt wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's naturalized an American for roughly 20 years.

After he broke US immigration law.

It would be unfair to retroactively remove someone's citizenship for illegally overstaying their own visa... But if you're punishing the child for their parents doing it, then it's just common-sense justice! /S

I'm really tired of all this Calvinball.

Post reply on HN