241–250 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what respects?
He is known to be a womanizer and to have used his fame to sleep with women, and may have fathered some illegitimate children. But the most damning is that apparently the FBI has an audio recording of him laughing and even giving encouragement while another man rapes a woman in a hotel room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judge for yourself: > the correct figure now is about 3,600 documents in the collection of 320,000 documents still contain redactions. That might mean we might have most of the document except for a sentence, a word, a name. In other cases, you know, several pages or, you know, I don't think there's any document that's withheld in its entirety. But, you know, it's still a lot of records. The bulk of those are CIA rec…
Sounds like that person knows very little and wants to sound important for a podcast. Security clearances are taken very seriously, you can't just spitball about classified things you've seen. My dad had classified knowledge from his time in the air force, and he wouldn't even discuss the category of information let alone give an overview of the contents, 50 years onward
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The remaining 1% is almost certainly where the good stuff is.
And if it turns out that there isn't anything interesting in that 1%, will you abandon this heuristic, and be more ready to accept that maybe the mundane explanation of 'they were kept classified because the people involved are still alive' is the norm for stuff like this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy. You want people to tell the truth to government investigations in the future, and not hold something back because they think in 15 years the government might just release a transcript of everything you told them.
> I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy. you probably also think that mk ultra is a conspiracy theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone previously decided that the remaining 1%, 1700 files, shouldn't be viewed by the public. Why? 1700 files is plenty to hold some interesting truths.
I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy. You want people to tell the truth to government investigations in the future, and not hold something back because they think in 15 years the government might just release a transcript of everything you told them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone previously decided that the remaining 1%, 1700 files, shouldn't be viewed by the public. Why? 1700 files is plenty to hold some interesting truths.
I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy. You want people to tell the truth to government investigations in the future, and not hold something back because they think in 15 years the government might just release a transcript of everything you told them.
Are the Dulles still alive ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sure it makes some TLA look bad. I fully expect to not have everything released.
It depends on how bad it is. For example, if it turned out that a Secret Service officer fired a stray round that hit the President then I don't think we're going to see that made public ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a snide, low-effort comment that didn't have the bare minimum of effort put into it to research whether or not its core premise was correct, and actively degrades the quality of discourse on HN. It would have taken thirty seconds to Google "President Trump administration priorities" and come up with https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/01/pres... The efficacy or utility of those priorities doe…
i very much dislike that anytime i see a comment on HN that isn't a wall of text arguing with someone, then the police arrive to tell them they're not allowed to participate in that way i hate the wall of text on this site. i hate how some people feel entitled to tell others their remarks aren't welcome. it truly takes away from this site to see the police show up on almost every single thread.
You either did not read my comment, intentionally and maliciously lied about what it said, or accidentally responded to the wrong comment, because it's extremely clear that I never said anything remotely like "you're not allowed to post anything except a wall of text arguing with someone".
> i hate the wall of text on this site.
Then go somewhere else. Hacker News is explicitly for intellectual curiosity, which involves thinking, which involves writing[1][2]. If you don't want to think, then this is not the place for you.
> i hate how some people feel entitled to tell others their remarks aren't welcome.
Your remarks are not welcome if you're going to violate the guidelines and engage in political flamewars. Just like in real life, there are things you can't or shouldn't say. That shouldn't be a foreign concept.
> it truly takes away from this site to see the police show up on almost every single thread.
If the "police" are those calling out violations of the guidelines - you're factually incorrect. The guidelines add to the site, because they're crafted in a way to allow intellectual discussion. Comments such as yours, and the grandparent comment, take away from the discussion by pushing aside curious thought and replacing it with emotional outburst and base instinct.
Notice that you didn't make a single logical point in your comment, nor did you inform or enlighten me or satisfy my intellectual curiosity - you just spoke about your feelings and your hatred. Why would I go to HN when I can read that on Twitter or Bluesky?
[1] https://paulgraham.com/words.html [2] https://paulgraham.com/writes.html