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

Zohran and the Short Link

iamwillwang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 236 posts

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#111

Post by zaphar »

pjc50 wrote: post #102
piker wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His policies are socialist. Some of us still perceive that as a bad thing.

I think the endless labelling of everything rightwingers don't like as "socialism" has backfired. A generation has been told that affordable food and housing, usable public transport, healthcare, not getting shot at school, not getting racially abused etc. are "socialism". So obviously they want to have some of this "socialism" as soon as possible.

To be fair Mamdani has stated that he is a "socialist" numerous times. So I don't think that the characterization is wrong necessarily.

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#112

Post by SwellJoe »

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #65
radicalriddler wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great thing about Bsky is that feeds can be user-run (and the for you feed is a great success story). So if Bluesky Inc. wants to derank links on their discover feed, there are a lot of user driven feed options to counteract that

The question is do you trust a healthy user-empowering ecosystem will form around a VC-fueled corporation that controls 97+% of the bluesky network? https://arewedecentralizedyet.online/

I wish Mastodon had been ready for an influx of Twitter refugees when the time came. And, I wish the average person was ready for decentralized services like the fediverse.

But, most of the Twitter folks I followed went to Bsky, so I have an account. I guess we just have to hope that even though all the signs point to a terrible end for Bsky, maybe the kind of cantankerous users who left Twitter early and built the culture there will keep them honest. The incentives are not aligned and neither are the people who run it (they honestly don't seem to like the most interesting Bsky posters very much, e.g. Link was permabanned), so, I'm not extremely hopeful.

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#113

Post by qgin »

Finnucane wrote: post #91
knollimar wrote: post #89

Left NYC around when he got elected (non political, just a job offer) Does he market by his first name now? It seems overly familiar and parasocial to use it in titles if not

Politicians have been doing this for a while now. I think the idea is to project more of a 'one of us' vibe and not stand on formality, which creates a vibe of being part of a separate class.

https://imgur.com/GB6fbxA

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#114

Post by mikaeluman »

voidUpdate wrote: post #110
derektank wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said, but is worth mentioning that while, “There is put simply no way this experiment ends in a way that is positive for New Yorkers,” is true, the most likely outcome is that (a) the stores will open and consistently lose a small amount of money, relative to the NYC budget, (b) some small grocers or bodegas will be either priced out or receive city subsidies which incur another small cost…

It could end up having positive effects on the population which could help with income for the city. I'm not an economist, but it seems possible to me

Even if you support "helping struggling people" to pay their groceries. There are already programs for this such as SNAP. Basically means-tested programs that try to benefit people in need.

There are many ways to do redistribution for purposes of social welfare without actually competing with retailers that actually live on slim margins.

That doesn't give you as spectacular political ads or showmanship, however.

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#115

Post by catlover76 »

piker wrote: post #90
voidUpdate wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question, what is it you don't like about Mamdani? I don't live in NYC, so I don't have first-hand experience with him, but I've not seen many complaints about him (other than things like "he broke the dress code at the swimming pool that one time", which is "Obama's tan suit" levels of petty)

His policies are socialist. Some of us still perceive that as a bad thing.

> His policies are socialist.

Depends on how one defines "socialist"

> Some of us still perceive that as a bad thing.

Then what's wrong with you? Look at other first world countries.

All this "socialism bad" bullshit needs to stop. It has no basis in reality.

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#116

Post by TimorousBestie »

zaphar wrote: post #111
pjc50 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the endless labelling of everything rightwingers don't like as "socialism" has backfired. A generation has been told that affordable food and housing, usable public transport, healthcare, not getting shot at school, not getting racially abused etc. are "socialism". So obviously they want to have some of this "socialism" as soon as possible.

To be fair Mamdani has stated that he is a "socialist" numerous times. So I don't think that the characterization is wrong necessarily.

He identifies as a socialist, sure, but his implemented policies (what GGP was calling socialist) are mostly standard-issue municipal management.

Is it socialism to hire temporary labor for snow removal? To fix potholes? My boring municipality in the middle of a red state does that and nobody calls it socialist.

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#117

Post by bakies »

slopinthebag wrote: post #60
anigbrowl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't even specify which link had the errors; 'the first one I managed to make work' is something known only to you. Complaining about a problem while not providing any hints on how to reproduce it is not a great way to win friends and influence people.

Okay well I don't care about "winning friends" and "influencing people" on the internet.

Then stfu

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#118

Post by krapp »

zaphar wrote: post #111
pjc50 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the endless labelling of everything rightwingers don't like as "socialism" has backfired. A generation has been told that affordable food and housing, usable public transport, healthcare, not getting shot at school, not getting racially abused etc. are "socialism". So obviously they want to have some of this "socialism" as soon as possible.

To be fair Mamdani has stated that he is a "socialist" numerous times. So I don't think that the characterization is wrong necessarily.

If we want to be fair, it depends on the characterization and its intended implications. The right has called every Democrat since FDR a "socialist" specifically to put the fear of tanks in the streets and death camps into people regardless of their actual policies. They called Obama a socialist. They called Hillary Clinton a socialist.

So even if Mamdani calls himself a socialist it's important to ask what he means by that versus what people calling him a socialist what you to think.

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#119

Post by tantalor »

NSPG911 wrote: post #27
lzy wrote: post #25

This is similar to Singapore’s https://go.gov.sg links. Functions exactly like tinyurl, generally used by public officers for the various programmes/initiatives from the ministries and agencies.

it would be nice if they added a link preview not sure why they have never done that before

What's a "link preview"?

Re: Zohran and the Short Link

#120

Post by grackasthebig »

mercutio2 wrote: post #97
voidUpdate wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, as far as I'm aware, "socialism" just means that the means of production are owned socially, instead of privately. But is there anything that he's actually done that is disagreeable, or is it just that many news outlets are saying "socialism = bad, Mamdani is socialist, therefore Mamdani = bad"?

“Just” is doing a lot of work in your argument. The government grocery store tender is filled with exceptionally bad ideas. When he’s a normal politician doing normal things, he seems great. When he’s sticking to his guns on naive populist things he’s part of a worrying affection for counterproductive government programs.

Yeah but under the norm none of us owe you anything including food or healthcare; that is... we don't have to care you exist

Why volunteer such?

Under capitalism there is no honorific obligationism. Pay me to give a shit you exist or go hungry and die

What's that? You want a social and communal society?

Sounds like naive populism.

Post reply on HN