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

Let Snowden Come Home

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#281

Post by alfiedotwtf »

vacri wrote: post #264
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? Because most of the time it's celebrity endoresment - appeal to authority, without having authority. Why should I trust George Clooney's opinion on coffee let alone what he thinks about Darfur?

At least in Jolie's case, she's visited those places. Regardless of her celebrity (and entourage), she has more personal experience than I do. Exposure should at least count for something, even if you have to take resulting comments with a grain of salt due to other factors. I imagine Clooney's also had more access to finer coffee than myself, but I can safely assume that adverts aren't expressing personal opinions i…

> access to finer coffee

Not sure about that. Great coffee isn't that expensive.

Speaking of celebrity endoresment and coffee - Al Pacino did an ad for Vittoria (Australian coffee brand) which is IMHO burned-tasting, low quality coffee. There was an interview with the marketing people who made the commercial, and the reason why they chose him was purely because he was a well known Italian... making him a perceived authority on good coffee. Spoiler alert - he isn't.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#282

Post by mirimir »

derefr wrote: post #165
themeek wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I meet seem to be under the persuasion that China is evil, corrupt and dictatorial - a unique wielder of force and propaganda. And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest or the self-actualized pockets of civil unrest. Maybe there's a Venn Diagram of information bubble in there somewhere.

Note that I was talking about the information bubble within China , affecting Chinese citizens. The people within it are immune to Chinese government propaganda; the people outside of it (most of the rural population, for starters) are affected by the propaganda. The Chinese government doesn't care to attempt to change what Americans think about China; they know they won't be able to convince them of anything after s…

For those who are curious about what China is telling the Chinese about America etc, some VPN services have Chinese exits. One can also lease Chinese VPS. And usable translation is possible with https://translate.google.com/ plus the Perapera Chinese popup dictionary plug-in for Firefox.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#283

Post by dagw »

mortehu wrote: post #89
hueving wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue. 1. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s... 2. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...

only 59% knew the name of the vice president

It doesn't help that he's been probably the most invisible Vice President in god knows how many years. I bet you if you asked the same question during the G.W. Bush years a lot more people would be able to answer.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#284

Post by foxhedgehog »

electic wrote: post #85
hueving wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

It is easy to also forget, however sad, that the people that do know of Snowden, and are familiar with what he did, think he is a traitor and should stand trial for his "crimes". [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...

There isn't any conflict between believing both this and that some of what Snowden did was admirable. The common belief is that the U.S. is supposed to be a nation of laws.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#285

Post by foxhedgehog »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #206
hueving wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But most folks I talk to (even not in tech) know that the nsa is supposed to be doing foreign spying and are fine with it. You quickly fall into a minority thinking that exposing foreign operations was "right".

The thing with "foreign spying" is that most people I know do make a distinction between spying on foreign governments (were the biggest question is, should governments spy on close allies, and if so, how much?) and mass surveillance abroad. Think about it this way, would you be mad if Russia FSB agents were constantly trying to get access to classified military networks of the US? Well no, that's part of their state…

What if the FSB was surveilling all Russian citizens?

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#286

Post by mreiland »

Larrikin wrote: post #278
eropple wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given Joe Biden's long and fairly distinguished career in the Senate, I would think most adults should know who he is, at least in outline, and know that he's the Vice President. And I don't follow politics any more closely than I think any basically educated American should. But then, there's that "basically educated" thing, isn't it? Our aggressive willingness, as a society, to not know things about how it actually…

I consider myself relatively informed about politics and had never heard of him until he became Obama's running mate. Senators and Congressmen are relatively unknown outside of their state for the most part.

You may consider yourself relatively informed, but you'd be wrong.

Joe Biden was a very well known senator before he became Vice President, any criteria you use to call yourself relatively informed about US politics when you had never heard of Joe Biden is flawed.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#287

Post by foxhedgehog »

vonklaus wrote: post #202
markdown wrote: post #113

> has been languishing in Vladimir Putin’s Russia for almost two years. Is this like Obama's USA? What is the purpose of calling it Putin's Russia?

While it is a stupid distinction, and one I wouldn;t personally use, it is objectively true Putin exerts a bit more control over Russia than Obama commands in the USA.

This is an understatement. Imagine if Obama had worked for the CIA his whole life, had come to power in a nondemocratic fashion mysteriously after Bill Clinton was forced to step down, had nationalized Chevron and put the CIA in charge, imprisoned the Koch brothers, invaded Mexico twice, held a series of sham elections, stayed in power for decades, and was rumored to be one of the richest people on the planet.

"The Man Without a Face" by Masha Gessen is a great read on Putin's rise to power.

http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-Unlikely/dp/159...

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#288

Post by Pyxl101 »

themeek wrote: post #227
astazangasta wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran does not have nukes. It makes no sense for them to have nukes and keep that fact secret (see Dr. Strangelove).

Well, Israel has nukes but on an official level 'doesn't have nukes' - the Dr. Strangelove analysis isn't fully complete. (It is true that everyone knows that Israel has nukes). Iran does not have nuclear weapons but they are extremely close to having nuclear weapons. They have the knowledge, the material, etc such that if the sustained cooperation of other nations to sabotage their nuclear operations were to discont…

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but are you sure the reason they don't have nukes is that other countries are stopping them? I had gotten the impression that they definitely have the ability, and haven't done it because they know it will cause a serious escalation in tension for not really a lot of benefit.

When the recent Iran deals were being announced, I read material that said something along the lines of "Iran is 3 months from having a nuke" (breakout). It seemed to be saying, "Iran is holding steady, but could pull the trigger (so to speak) and begin the final 3 months of preparation at any moment". The goal of the nuclear agreement was to keep them perpetually some certain number of months away (or increase it) from having enough material for a bomb.

> The IR-1s installed in the Natanz and Fordow facilities have been performing at an average per unit rate of 0.75 to 1 SWU per year. Using the 1 SWU/year performance of the latest IR-1 model, the breakout time with 9,000 machines using a natural uranium feed would be six to seven months. However, Iran also has substantial stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) that can be used as an alternative feed, shrinking the breakout time to three months.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iran...

> Mr. Kerry was joined at the talks by Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, who will have to certify to Congress that the deal ensures that Iran will remain at least a year away from being able to produce a weapon’s worth of bomb fuel over the next decade, a complex calculation in which the size of Iran’s stockpile is a major factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/world/middleeast/irans-nuc...

Now maybe there's far more sabotage than we know about going on, but it sounds like Iran has the ability to accumulate enough material, and is choosing not to. The way this is phrased implies that Iran is halting work toward a bomb.

> The [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors, who have had almost daily access to most of Iran’s nuclear production facilities, reported finding no evidence that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon, and said Tehran had halted work on facilities that could have given it bomb-making capabilities.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#289

Post by foxhedgehog »

aikah wrote: post #83
fsdfewjfiekf wrote: post #7

As long as "home" means "prison next to Robert Hanssen and everyone else who sold secrets to the Russians", then sure.

He didn't sold anything to Russia, the leaks are public throwaway shill. That's called whistle blowing and he exposed the wickedness and the corruption of your "adored" government. But Ignorance is bliss for some.

Was he also whistleblowing when he mysteriously appeared on Russian television asking softball questions to Putin?

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#290

Post by foxhedgehog »

dagw wrote: post #283
mortehu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue. 1. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s... 2. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...

only 59% knew the name of the vice president It doesn't help that he's been probably the most invisible Vice President in god knows how many years. I bet you if you asked the same question during the G.W. Bush years a lot more people would be able to answer.

By what metric has he been invisible?
Post reply on HN