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

MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 253 posts

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#201

Post by wat10000 »

nec4b wrote: post #199
wat10000 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a nickel for every time I replied to an HN comment to give the blindingly obvious example of "Adolf Hitler," I'd have two nickels. Which isn't much, but it's weird that it happened twice.

Sure, you got one and he is way bellow the most successful far left dictators in terms of numbers. First you claimed numbers are higher for far right and then you said they are close. Why would you even make up such nonsense?

I wasn't the one saying the numbers are higher for one side or the other.

I am curious how you conclude that Hitler is "way below" the others. Seems to me they're similar. Estimates are way too loose, and attribution way too sticky, to say definitively who's higher, but they're around the same magnitude.

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#202

Post by nec4b »

wat10000 wrote: post #201
nec4b wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you got one and he is way bellow the most successful far left dictators in terms of numbers. First you claimed numbers are higher for far right and then you said they are close. Why would you even make up such nonsense?

I wasn't the one saying the numbers are higher for one side or the other. I am curious how you conclude that Hitler is "way below" the others. Seems to me they're similar. Estimates are way too loose, and attribution way too sticky, to say definitively who's higher, but they're around the same magnitude.

Parent: "Or leftist politicians, where they can do it on an industrial scale by the millions in death camps, in the name of progress."

You: "I would point out that when it comes to these, right, far right and fascists win the numbers."

>> I am curious how you conclude that Hitler is "way below" the others.

Looking at various estimates by people who were researching this topic. The numbers are usually in ranges and vary between researches. But the highest estimate for Hitler was always lower then the lowest estimates for Stalin and nowhere near Mao's lowest estimates.

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#203

Post by jimbo808 »

richardfeynman wrote: post #188
IAmBroom wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Left-handed people are getting killed and assaulted around the world, but no one ever seems to care about that open conspiracy! Every time a lefty gets cut off in traffic, it's just one more data point.

There is no global hate movement against lefties that encourages and relishes in their pain. There is for Jews, who despite accounting for only 2% of the US population are victims of 69% of religious-based hate crimes. Doing the math, Jews are 35x more likely to be the victim of a hate crime. This is not true for lefties. (This is a general statement responding to your analogy. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I…

Do you include the deaths in Gaza in the hate crime statistic?

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#204

Post by DoctorOetker »

datameta wrote: post #185
dmoy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US at least, duty to protect and serve is just a marketing slogan. There are multiple court cases decisions showing that police have no duty to protect people. All the way up to the Supreme Court

"Protect and Serve" ( the State )

(the status quo)

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#205

Post by DoctorOetker »

eichin wrote: post #60
OutOfHere wrote: post #39

[flagged]

Final exams at MIT started yesterday and don't end until Friday https://registrar.mit.edu/classes-grades-evaluations/examina... so grades are mostly not yet available.

as if the police are waiting for the victim to finish grading the exams

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#206

Post by OutOfHere »

UncleMeat wrote: post #147
OutOfHere wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your logic, anything that satisfies Occam's razor is lazy stereotyping. And that doesn't make the idea unlikely anyway.

Given how few disgruntled students murder their professors, no it would not be the Occam's Razor conclusion that the murderer was a disgruntled student.

Such an incident at a random small college or small university would not make the national news. MIT is one of the few nationally known universities, so it did.

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#207

Post by wat10000 »

nec4b wrote: post #202
wat10000 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't the one saying the numbers are higher for one side or the other. I am curious how you conclude that Hitler is "way below" the others. Seems to me they're similar. Estimates are way too loose, and attribution way too sticky, to say definitively who's higher, but they're around the same magnitude.

Parent: "Or leftist politicians, where they can do it on an industrial scale by the millions in death camps, in the name of progress." You: "I would point out that when it comes to these, right, far right and fascists win the numbers." >> I am curious how you conclude that Hitler is "way below" the others. Looking at various estimates by people who were researching this topic. The numbers are usually in ranges and va…

That wasn’t me.

From a quick search, the lowest estimates for Stalin are about 6 million, and Mao about 15 million. Are you saying Hitler killed less than 6 million? Even 15 million would be way too low.

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#208

Post by richardfeynman »

jimbo808 wrote: post #203
richardfeynman wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no global hate movement against lefties that encourages and relishes in their pain. There is for Jews, who despite accounting for only 2% of the US population are victims of 69% of religious-based hate crimes. Doing the math, Jews are 35x more likely to be the victim of a hate crime. This is not true for lefties. (This is a general statement responding to your analogy. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I…

Do you include the deaths in Gaza in the hate crime statistic?

No, I don't. I include only FBI statistics of hate crimes targeting religious groups in the United States. Jews are 35x more likely to be victims of hate crimes in the US. Nothing to do with Gaza.

Some people refuse to acknowledge this reality and others attempt to justify it. Many resort to sarcasm as a defense mechanism, revealing their own biases in written records on major public forums.

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#209

Post by jimbo808 »

richardfeynman wrote: post #208
jimbo808 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you include the deaths in Gaza in the hate crime statistic?

No, I don't. I include only FBI statistics of hate crimes targeting religious groups in the United States. Jews are 35x more likely to be victims of hate crimes in the US. Nothing to do with Gaza. Some people refuse to acknowledge this reality and others attempt to justify it. Many resort to sarcasm as a defense mechanism, revealing their own biases in written records on major public forums.

First of all, that’s not true. Your statistic is probably based on one that indicates Jews account for 69% of religious-based hate crimes, while being 2% of the population. That’s about 35 times more likely if religious-motivated hate crimes were the only type of hate crime. But they’re not, so you’re just misrepresenting the data. The most generous stat you could use would be the one from 2023-2024, which has Jews as 16% of all hate crimes in the US, so an 8x multiplier. But this was a dramatic uptick, which came along with the genocide being committed in their name.

Also, there is a massively asymmetric application of hate crime laws, as you can clearly see by the automatic “hate crime” conclusion you’re already seeing here simply because the victim was Jewish. This asymmetry is glaringly obvious when you look at the handling of these two stabbings.

In one case, the perpetrator stabbed a white woman to death, and said on camera "got the white bitch." In the other case, the subway stabbing happened "blocks from" a synagogue following an argument. Which one do you think gets the hate crime treatment?

https://abc7ny.com/post/hate-crime-investigation-victim-stab...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-charlotte-train-stabbing-i...

This asymmetry makes it impossible to gain much insight from the statistics on this. It’s very likely that 8x is a very high upper bound, and only in an exceptional year where those stats coincided with a genocide committed in their name, which has been a cause for global outrage and disgust.

Re: MIT professor shot at his Massachusetts home dies

#210

Post by uselesswords »

acdha wrote: post #163
uselesswords wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most responsible outlets don’t speculate on motives until there’s some evidence of a connection That is simply not true, every single news outlet without fail speculates, uncritically quotes a speculator, or leaves out warranted critical speculation at their own discretion. Pick a news site that you think doesn’t do this and I will happily find an example from their front page.

Reporters tend to be very careful about this in the context of things like deaths, embarrassing scandals, etc. where they might be sued. If you note, the kind of stories you’re referring to tend to be referencing what someone else said—a source in law enforcement, neighbors, friends, etc.—because that makes it clear that there are not the opinion of the news organization itself.

I agree with everything you said, but the news organization's decision to include or not include a quote or speculation from someone is fundamentally a narrative choice. And every news organization makes those choices at their own discretion and it can result in uncritical reporting.

Pick a few frontpage stories from any news site you like, then see how its covered one a new source you don't like/leans the opposite way politically (short of the crazy outlets) and see how the same stories are reported. You'll see different quotes, different speculation, different choices of what to include or not include. Hell even the choice of what is covered on the frontpage will obviously vary if you just compare them. Saying that what a news outlet is reporting is "not the opinion of the news organization itself" may be technically correct in a legal sense, but that's worst kind of correct.

Post reply on HN