I support the initiative, but it seems half the respondents are trolls (Debby does Dallas, USAID Fake news, etc), which make it all look very unserious. I would recommend some moderation or validation.
Boycott IETF 127
341–350 of 412 posts
Re: Boycott IETF 127
#342Re: Boycott IETF 127
#343@dang Why is this flagged? Even without the politics, knowing that a large cohort is not going to attend in an important piece of information.
It's flagged because it's one-sided political activism. I mostly support the first EO that is on that front page. What am I supposed to do? 1) Post here and defend it, then get in a flame war with people who disagree? 2) bite my lip because we're not supposed to support Trump's actions? I'm not allowed to support the elected president because it's not popular?
I'm sure there's a left-leaning tech group you can join where everyone agrees with you. But this post doesn't belong here, and neither do flame wars.
Re: Boycott IETF 127
#344Re: Boycott IETF 127
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Are you trying to claim that all users of Adderall have ADHD? Because that is the only way you can say "well he is effectively talking about ADHD if he is talking about adderall", but that conflation is objectively untrue. Countless people without ADHD abuse adderall / ritalin / etc. In fact, people without ADHD are much more in need of an intervention if they are abusing addera…
> Because that is the only way you can say "well he is effectively talking about ADHD if he is talking about adderall", No it's not the only way, because he's also talking about SSRIs, which have only medical uses (no abuse potential really). Therefore it is reasonable to argue he is also talking about Adderall's intended medical use against ADHD rather than its abuse.
No, you can't put words in his mouth. He said Adderall, not ADHD.
Yes he said SSRIs, but SSRIs are not for ADHD, so that has no bearing on whether or not he said "people with ADHD should be sent to camps", which he just... did not say.
This shouldn't need to be stated, but I personally think RFK Jr. is a nutter. That doesn't mean you can stick words in his mouth or imply things he didn't actually say.
Be better than the other side.
Re: Boycott IETF 127
#346[flagged]
> The only problem with the rock solid consensus on this forum is that pesky landslide victory. A 1.47% margin — the third narrowest since 1972, the two narrower both being negative margin wins, including Trump's first — is not a “landslide”.
He won every single swing state. Under his leadership his party got the house and the senate. You’re in denial picking an arbitrary metric that doesn’t reflect how elections are won.
Re: Boycott IETF 127
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is another, better UI for HN: https://hn.algolia.com/ set it for the last 24 hours and enjoy uncensored content
Or, use https://news.ycombinator.com/active
It's always fun when you make something only to realize it already exists. It's a pain that I'm sure you know as well.
Re: Boycott IETF 127
#348[flagged]
[flagged]
Even your response is echoing my observation, going on about him. Whoever really sought to defeat him should have been focused on proffering a cohesive, affirmative platform.
For the record I’m not a fan of his on many issues but it’s still fascinating to see millions of people endorse a failing strategy and after it completely blew up in their face just keep pursuing it.
Re: Boycott IETF 127
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't there still violent conflicts with drug gangs where citizens are killed still going on in Mexico?
Yes absolutely. It’s odd to see people here suggesting Mexico as an alternative based on safety of travelers. It’s a giveaway that they’re simply being opportunistic in attacking America due to their opposition to the administration, rather than anything actually safety related. As an example, this article from 2025 about a family of foreigners being shot dead also lists numerous other recent examples of tourists bei…
There are certainly plenty of areas in Mexico that are dangerous (typically along the US border and drug routes), but it's not as though everywhere in the country is more dangerous than everywhere in the US. E.g., I've been to academic conferences in plenty of US cities that rank among the most dangerous in the world (Baltimore, Oakland, Philly, etc.), [0] as well as Mexico City, which decidedly does not rank among the most dangerous -- let alone the resort destinations. The reality is, "family on vacation murdered in cartel territory" is going to draw a lot more media attention than "family on vacation robbed in New Orleans" or "overwhelming majority of families have perfectly safe vacations". You can't judge by sensationalist articles how safe a place actually is, let alone an entire nation the size of Mexico.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_homicide_rat...
Re: Boycott IETF 127
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because that is the only way you can say "well he is effectively talking about ADHD if he is talking about adderall", No it's not the only way, because he's also talking about SSRIs, which have only medical uses (no abuse potential really). Therefore it is reasonable to argue he is also talking about Adderall's intended medical use against ADHD rather than its abuse.
No, you can't put words in his mouth. He said Adderall, not ADHD. Yes he said SSRIs, but SSRIs are not for ADHD, so that has no bearing on whether or not he said "people with ADHD should be sent to camps", which he just... did not say. This shouldn't need to be stated, but I personally think RFK Jr. is a nutter. That doesn't mean you can stick words in his mouth or imply things he didn't actually say. Be better than…
That's all nice and well, but he also did say "psychiatric drugs", as if those were somehow generally bad and appropriate to reference in the same breath as illegal drugs.
Maybe, had he not said that bit as well, I'd agree with you. He could be talking about Adderall purely in a sense of misuse.
But he included psychiatric drugs, and that (and the SSRIs) makes his statement ambiguous enough that I'm comfortable interpreting it as including ADHD patients.
(And, just purely for vilifying psychiatric drugs, the threshold for intolerance [which must not be tolerated in order to achieve a tolerant society] is crossed. Lots of people have mental health issues and need treatment, including with drugs.)