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

101–110 of 249 posts

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

#101

Post by Modified3019 »

sho_hn wrote: post #72

Are there any good blogs that are chronicling the USA Federal gov's slow descent into facism and overt corruption, just collecting and archiving pieces like this with a classiciation/categorization etc.? I think it's an unprecedented opportunity to record the history of a downfall using modern tools, and future generations might benefit enormously. When I learned about the disruption of the Weimar Republic in highsch…

> When I learned about the disruption of the Weimar Republic in highschool, a thing our teacher did was make copious use of newspaper clippings to explain he delta between ground truth and public sentiment, and how certain narratives increased in frequency, etc. He had personally spent quite some time in old archives and on microfilm readeers to create his little library. Something like this, but with much more data.

That sounds interesting. Wish it had been converted into a blogpost or something for more permanence.

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

#102

Post by codr7 »

kevstev wrote: post #17
khazhoux wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this.

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…

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?

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

#103

Post by Terr_ »

akmarinov wrote: post #62
Terr_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A minority spoke clearly. Many of "the people" didn't vote, and Trump got less than 50% of those that did.

The ones that didn’t vote are ok with what the voters choose, otherwise they would’ve voted

"Spoke clearly that they wanted $X" != "Didn't take the opportunity to express any opinion."

Those are fundamentally different.

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

#104

Post by o11c »

kevstev wrote: post #17
khazhoux wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this.

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…

[flagged]

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

#105

Post by computerthings »

khazhoux wrote: post #13
bmitc wrote: post #6

Our government is literally falling in a matter of weeks. It's being assaulted, and we're all just standing by.

The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this.

Where did Trump promise to remove Phyllis Fong? Or something less specific that would translate to this? He promised to lower egg prices, and "the majority of the few people voted for Trump, so any random thing he now does is what THE AMERICAN PEOPLE wanted" is just not true.

And even if it was, to me the question isn't "did someone else want this at some point in the past, probably based on false or even no information" anyway, but how to judge it now. Sometimes people want wrong things for shitty reasons and a minority has to stand up to them standing on their principles.

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

#106

Post by pbronez »

sho_hn wrote: post #72

Are there any good blogs that are chronicling the USA Federal gov's slow descent into facism and overt corruption, just collecting and archiving pieces like this with a classiciation/categorization etc.? I think it's an unprecedented opportunity to record the history of a downfall using modern tools, and future generations might benefit enormously. When I learned about the disruption of the Weimar Republic in highsch…

Check out KeepTrack

https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/

Also has a Patreon

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

#107

Post by llamaimperative »

amazingamazing wrote: post #92
llamaimperative wrote: post #2

The specific law that Trump is very obviously breaking is the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022, which says Congress must be notified 30 days in advance and given "substantive" rationale for dismissing inspectors general. This law was passed specifically in response to Trump breaking the antecedent law, Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, during his first term. Will the "party of law and order" do…

[flagged]

"Plz explain why you are breaking the law?" - Senators

The IGs have already been removed. He already broke the law. Requesting an explanation as to why he did it post facto changes nothing about that, ergo the GOP Senators are doing effectively nothing: the IGs are already gone.

The letter doesn't even allude to any consequences whatsoever, neither for the initial illegality nor refusing their request for explanation of the illegality.

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

#108

Post by codr7 »

khazhoux wrote: post #75
watwut wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. You cant explain fascism just by them being desperate economically. That is not how it works. They did not had to have Trump to be representant of the republican party again. If they were bothered by economics, they would pick someone else even if they wanted to change parties. They wanted to cause harm for reasons unrelated to economics.

You see an electorate that wanted to cause harm. I see an electorate that thought anything is better than a black woman in charge. :-\

[flagged]

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

#109

Post by jazzyjackson »

amazingamazing wrote: post #74
r0ckarong wrote: post #4

Nothing to see here. Just a massive conflict of interest from an unelected foreigner exacting power over your government.

i actually have no clue - but isnt musk a u.s. citizen? it would actually surprise me if he were not.

It’s a sketchy story, he was technically in violation of his J1 visa since he was skipping classes and picked up an H1B work visa for his own startup which J1 strictly requires prior authorization for. It would seem he had some strings pulled and got post-hoc pre-authorization, or otherwise took advantage of some grace period and applied for the new visa with a fib. It’s all water under the bridge now, from a brief googling Denaturalization is rare except for cases of concealing crimes committed during naturalization or sham marriages. Lying on your application should revoke it from you but if it’s merely an omission, I don’t know, comes down to political will to prosecute, maybe if he pisses trump off enough somebody will “look into it”

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

#110

Post by khazhoux »

Dalewyn wrote: post #90
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…

[flagged]

> With regards specifically to Phyllis Fong, I have no confidence that an Inspector-General that occupied the office for twenty two years straight[1] can ethically perform their prescribed role. I am in complete agreement with her termination, we need someone (anyone) new and different in there.

Are you "in complete agreement" because of actual things Fong did, or because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying?

Post reply on HN