Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sejje's commentslogin

Why did you abandon your own thread, OP?

There's a "git bisect" command waiting to get in the game

I think where the politics bleed into tech, we should allow the politics to bleed into discussions, staying on topic.

If the Tesla article commenters are talking about ICE, it's a problem.

But just posting political news to the front page sucks. And, thankfully, we have a working system for handling it.

HN has traditionally not let much politics through, and it's the better for it. Some does get through, and that's okay--it's not a moratorium. But I think we should endeavor to keep it pretty limited.


To be on the scale of social media, you'll need to be a profitable billion dollar business.

Nobody has supported billions of users with modest goals. It's nearly an oxymoron.


The guidelines also say this isn't a place for stuff you'd see on the news. Like Venezuela, the exact thing OP mentioned.

There was no tech in the story, no overlap.


This just in: 1776 comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46473348

No guideline will divert a determined, thundering herd.

We are what we do, and it appears we do care about the world beyond our immediate technical interests.

Special occasion. Exception to prove the rule.

[EDIT] I just realized, I'd already added some tech into the otherwise political discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46476424


Oh don't get me wrong, I've got multiple comments in that exact thread.

I still would rather not see it here. I get my fill of politics elsewhere.


Direction action is a thing.

I get why folks saying "if you don't like it don't read it" feels jerky, but "if you don't like it, don't participate in it" seems pretty reasonable, I'd think.


That's fair, but it's also fair for me to have priorities, and to participate in something I think should change.

I think the non-political threads are where HN shines, and I believe in playing to your strengths. This is a wonderful place where subject-matter experts come crawling out to give you wonderful, deep knowledge about some esoteric discussion on the regular.

We don't get political experts here as often, and the average political commentary on this site probably rivals...well, the rest of the internet.

But while we're rooting around in the mud, I might join in. And I'm okay with occasional politics, I just wish it didn't get enough upvotes to make random political stories the front-page news here. In the past, much bigger stories either didn't make the front page, or were moderated--I'm not sure which.

Anyway, I'm not really complaining here about the moderation, either. I think they do a great job. I can live with the amount of politics we have here, I just hope it doesn't increase.


Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

Nowhere in there does it require "tech in the story."

You may not consider anything non tech-related to be interesting, but that isn't your decision to enforce on behalf of the community.


I didn't say it required tech, just that it didn't have any. It's exactly what they'd put on mainstream news. It IS mainstream news.

I'm usually in the thread defending the unusual, non-tech posts. One of the most consequential reads of all time, for me, was a personal blog posted by Paul Buccheit about the death of his brother.

I'm all about the intellectual curiosity aspect, so you read me wrong.

The Venezuela story that is/was near the top of the front page is just pure politics. There's nothing else it brings.

I'm not policing or enforcing things on behalf of the community, no need to be a smarmy jerk. I'm presenting my arguments just like you are. Thanks for the lesson, Chad.


Mainstream news often involves tech too, so even that isn't a hard and fast heuristic. And it's never been the case that "pure politics" is off topic for HN. Most of the time someone dies and an obituary thread is posted it's mainstream news as well, yet you'll be flagged into oblivion for pointing that out.

Here are some comments by dang clarifying the matter.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43142682

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43272671

Who tf is Chad?


I think we agree, you're just misrepresenting my position.

The OP is talking about the Venezuela story on the front page. It's not a good example of what you're talking about.


That would be working as intended, besides the resignation. Any ticket with Trump as VP is putting him next in line, as intended.

The people would be knowingly voting for that, and he would have to win the election of course.

After a review of the amendment, I don't believe it would be a "narrow interpretation" to read the text of the law and apply it.

Are you saying it wouldn't be okay for him to be VP and take the helm if Vance died? I think that would be okay, per my reading.

The deception/switcharoo is a different problem, not really related to running three times. Biden could have made Kamala President Day 1 as well.


Why even have term limits if that is okay?

No one has ever expected a former President to want to become a VP — a lower office.


We'll have to address it if it ever happens. I doubt we're the first to consider it happening, including the folks who drafted the amendment.

I don't really think you're that clever, no offense. Other humans can think of "what ifs" just the same as you.

There's probably a historical record of how they arrived at the language, if you care about that kind of thing.


It wasn't until the 25th amendment (which, you'll note, came after the 22nd) that the vice president was officially the successor to the presidency. So it would be weird for the 22nd to have a "what if" answer to something that wasn't yet itself law

The specific Americans you speak of mostly care about domestic issues and trend isolationist. They'll perhaps be slightly peeved anytime we intervene overseas, but they'll certainly overlook it while they get what they want at home.

I doubt they care (or know) about Venezuela.

Also I think the number is hundreds of millions, not tens.


I'm referring specifically to the people who support the military action in Venezuela, which is a subset of those who voted for Trump. Like you say, most of them care mainly about domestic issues. However there is a crowd that is all in on Trump and supports whatever he does - you can see them cheering even here in the comments - those are the tens of millions that I'm speaking of. It's still way too many, unfortunately.

Several? Like three?

3/600,000 removals in 2025 = .000005% chance

So, to answer his question: not realistic at all that you'll get deported as a citizen. That's without fact checking you. I haven't seen anything about actual citizens being removed, including in the sibling comment claiming it with a reference.


> Besides, how realistic is a fear that a law abiding citizen would be endangered by the ICE?

Perhaps you are having trouble following the conversation. The argument put forth by OP is that ICE is endangering american citizens. That is factually true.

https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-...


Oh sorry, you snuck that and changed the subject in while we were taking about people being deported, to try to salvage a point.

I'm way more concerned with regular law enforcement endangering American citizens than ICE.


I didn’t sneak anything in - you failed to follow a thread. Why are you trying to put that on me? It’s okay to admit fault and take responsibility. It is obvious at this point that you do not care or won’t take the time to understand the conversation or respond in good faith.

My concern covers all LEO fucking with American citizens, especially the masked and unidentified ones.


So anyway, per your link: 170 citizens "wrapped up" by ice during between 327,000 and 605,000 deportations, depending on which source you like (I linked them in a different response to you in another thread).

Between .0005% and .0003% chance that if ICE grabs someone up, they're a citizen. I think that's a pretty good record, actually. I don't think it's very alarming.

We have 348 million citizens, 170 got held for...days! While we conducted the most effective deportation of illegals in history.

I'm pretty sure ICE isn't going to accidentally get me. This problem may as well be non-existent.

What's real is actual citizens wrapped up in actual bullshit with regular LEO. With probably several orders of magnitude difference, wouldn't you agree? Maybe thousands per day, instead of 170 per year? Costing folks more than a few days' detention.

Why do you figure they're wearing masks?


I think that's extremely alarming, given the fact they are trying to deport people as fast as possible so they don't have time for a hearing in front of a judge. The hearing that they are supposedly guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the Constitution!

Which citizen was deported without seeing a judge?

If you mean they're deporting illegals without them seeing a judge, I'd be in favor of that.

Why does a 0% chance of a citizen being deported alarm you?


You might be in favor of it, but the Constitution they are sworn to defend is absolutely not in favor of it. It's frankly unamerican.

Why do you think deportation is the only thing that matters? We've seen ICE fuck up the lives of American citizens by destroying their property, illegally holding them, arresting entire buildings etc in Chicago. And there is zero recourse for these blatant violations. How about you open up your wallet and pay for their crimes if you're willing to go to bat for them so hard?

Hey dummy, the point of having an immigration hearing is to establish whether or not the deportation is legal.

0.0005%*

I doubt they'll like it, but like most Americans, I think they mostly gloss over foreign policy.

Most Americans can't find Venezuela on a map. (Presumably most humans can't)

They'll overlook this (and similar moves) and pay attention to domestic policy, unless we're dragged into an extended war.


Because GP is paying attention this time.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: