Where things stand with the Department of War • Hacker News Board

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#761

Post by stuartaxelowen » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:05 PM UTC

Perseids wrote: post #473

Rohunyyy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See in your case with the military you can directly say, hey my code will be used to bomb other people possibly. But in today's times it isn't (I am sure even then) so cut and dry. I worked in AdTech industry (like 60% of the bay area techies). So the ad tech I write gets shown to millions/billions. What about ads influencing elections and then politicians waging wars? Anti-vax ads which influence people and then kil…

> But what is the option? I feel each of us wants to draw a line based off of our morality but the circumstances don't allow us to stick to it (still gotta pay rent) I was with you up to this point, but when you say "life is to hard to stay moral" I am thinking about how buying the wrong shampoo contributes to micro plastic in the ocean, or how buying a fitting jeans that is not exploiting labor is an extremely time…

Given the atomization and layering of work, this has become much harder to truly judge. Ten years ago I was excited to join a customer feedback platform - what could be better than helping companies understand their customers and provide better services and products? You can probably see where this is going, but inevitably the tools were just used to better tweak product profitability and eliminate end customer surplus, to the customer company’s benefit. And they were used by the likes of draft kings et al along with the Starbucks and Nikes of the world. I hear people claim that, in capitalism, no one hands are clean, and I am inclined to agree.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#762

Post by InitialLastName » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:06 PM UTC

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #684

sodality2 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No conspiracy necessary. The CIA bought the rights to the 1954 film Animal Farm, modified the ending to fit propagandist ends, and it went undiscovered for four decades. The original Top Gun was intended to recover the image of the US Navy after the Vietnam War. Etc etc etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93entertainment...

> No conspiracy necessary. The CIA bought the rights to the 1954 film Animal Farm, modified the ending to fit propagandist ends, yea, I remember reading the book and then watching the movie and it had differences iirc, its available on youtube for free and I remember some comments talking about the different ending. IIRC, in the movie, the animals finally kick the pigs out and everything. It was a good ending. but in…

Confirmed, that's the last paragraph in my 1996 Signet Classics copy.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#763

Post by charcircuit » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:10 PM UTC

jwkpiano1 wrote: post #656

charcircuit wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Department of War is correct. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...

Executive orders aren’t laws. This is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111 .

Not all actions that are taken at an executive agency are done because of a law.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#764

Post by nickff » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:18 PM UTC

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #555

nickff wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gatling Gun was first deployed in the US civil war, not in Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun The “machine gun” has a more complicated history, and the first practical example may have been Gatling’s, or an earlier example used in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun

Forgive me I got the detail wrong. If your point was to deny that my imagined scenario never happened, read this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun

Basically all types of weapons have been used in all sorts of conflicts; the British used aircraft in their mandates, and the Italians used chemical weapons in Ethiopia. That said, I am not aware of any weapon which was developed specifically for use against a less technologically advanced adversary, most novel weapons are developed for use against peer-adversaries.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#765

Post by reducesuffering » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:20 PM UTC

egorfine wrote: post #487

One of the not-so-subtle ways we know a person is a supporter of russia's war in Ukraine is when they refer to it as "Special Military Operation". That begs the following question: why does Dario Amodei repeatedly call the Department of Defense "Department of War"?

Aren't people generally on board with preferred names? That's what the DoD wants to call themselves.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#766

Post by pbh101 » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:22 PM UTC

mckn1ght wrote: post #388

pbh101 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exhibits the borrowing GP mentions: your ‘should’ does not necessarily follow from the stated priors. Why is compassion morally mandated by the priors and not competition, for example?

It’s at least an option for consideration. I shouldn’t have spoken normatively. Is your position that compassion is only possible via religion?

Agree an option for consideration.

I don’t think religion is the only path, but that it has functioned as a prosocial positive-sum cooperating/compassion technology/mechanism in many cultural contexts. Not without downsides, of course.

That many today relatively reflexively default to ~‘we can all be nice to each other; this is obviously the (only) moral approach’ without stated precepts/priors/fundaments upon which that morality is moored I think tends to implicitly borrow priors from Western Christian tradition, albeit incompletely and sometimes critically so. Sam Harris’ recent appearance on Ross Douthat’s ‘Interesting Times’ podcast was IMO an example of this.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#767

Post by hax0ron3 » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #711

bdangubic wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exercised their rights not to vote. The “losing” side always thinks that higher turnout would have led to them “winning” which of course is a cry of a sore loser. The fact remains, 2024 election had the highest voter turnout ever and people have spoken (till the next one when we might get a chance to elect some adults to fix this shit)

When you don't vote, you're really just voting for "whoever happens to win". So I count the non-voters among (R) supporters, or at least as "OK with Trump". Otherwise, they would have voted.

I don't think that makes sense. If Harris had happened to win through some minor change in the timeline (she came very close after all), would those people whom you call R supporters instead somehow be D supporters, just because of that minor change in the timeline?

As for "OK with Trump", I think that describes some non-voters. However, there are also non-voters who are more accurately described as "not OK with either side, indeed dislike both sides so equally that neither one seems like the slightly better option".

There is also the factor of swing states. In most of the US, your vote for President pretty much doesn't matter. You almost might as well just put it in the trash. The vote in your state is, barring a massive political shift, locked in for one of the two major candidates. Now, yes, you can still send a message by voting in a non-swing state. But it's understandable why some people would just not bother to vote in a state where the outcome is almost predetermined.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#768

Post by godelski » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #630

godelski wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally described independence. You're confusing land with governance.

I'm not. You'll notice that I used the terms correctly. The government in Taipei claims all of mainland China and The island of Taiwan are united and a single state. As does the government in Beijing.

So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate.

Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there.

Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's theirs.

Or what about the USA? The British sure thought it was theirs for a long time. Should France not have gotten involved in all of that?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#769

Post by lukan » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:29 PM UTC

LunaSea wrote: post #759

lukan wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you claim there are only unethical income choices? Or do you claim your expected standard of income comes only with unethical offers?

I think that you can find something morally wrong with most companies or practices within these companies.

Oh if you are looking for dirt, you can find dirt allmost anywhere, but im gemeral I do see a difference in making a website for a kindergarten, vs applying the most efficient tech to track and target children with manipulative ads.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#770

Post by godelski » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

Alan_Writer wrote: post #506

srean wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bible is quite permissive of killing if it's in the name of god. Genocide is quite a recurring theme.

Even God told Abraham to kill his own son. Like, really?

Don't worry, it was just a test of Abraham's loyalty. God was never going to let him kill Isaac. It's the perfect example of a completely ethical thing to do to another person...