From recent posts I gather that you don't want to use HN as intended, so I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Of some note: some Rust core teams have already moved, piecemeal, official core team discussions to Discord, and are trying to get this done in a broad way:
This won't happen, the ruling coalition and PM have a long history of Hindu nationalist mob violence. Before modi became PM he was banned from the US for addicted that happened while he was governor of an Indian province with tacit approval. The RSS, the paramilitary wing if the BJP, openly takes inspiration from Nazis and Hitler's violent nationalism.
"Germany is the other Nation most in the eye of the world. Germany tried to unify its nation via taking over Austria.
Germany’s religion is not what it should be. “German race pride has now become a topic of the day.
To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifest here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.” - Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar We, or Our Nationhood Defined
Trade policy (protectionism) can co-exist with an open web, so Chinese tech companies could not only exist, they could serve non-Chinese customers in an open web, growing their market and competing globally with Google/FB/etc.
People like to say that, but in practice it's not true and hasn't been for over a century.
It depends on the topic. When it comes to things like interstate commerce, you are correct -- the states don't each have treaties with each other.
But when it comes to other things, like education, that's very much a local function. The feds set minimum best practices (enforced by the threat of removing funding), but it's up to the tens of thousands of local school districts to decide what to teach their children.
Some of those local school districts are huge, on the order of 10's of thousands of students. Others can be as small as 15 or 20 students, or even one individual school.
When it comes to the topic at hand -- GIS information -- It is pretty much a county situation. There are numerous competing GIS standards and products, and each county or municipality chooses the software that works for its needs, and budget.
So, yes, there is creeping federalism in the United States. But claiming "it's not true and hasn't been for over a century" shows a lack of understanding of local civics.
Assuming that to be true, I would expect there to be localities within the US where laws differ so vastly that they resemble different countries when juxtaposed. Yet, I’ve traveled enough of the US that this would surprise me. (It would be very interesting to experience those two, though!)
I think the US shows itself to be pretty homogeneous, with some differences between the rural, suburban, and urban areas, but not much.
Go to Las Vegas and then a dry county in Kentucky and note what you're allowed to buy and what you're allowed to do on the streets.
I can smoke weed legally for recreational purposes where I am here. Where I grew up I'd be thrown in jail.
Texas has no zoning laws of any kind. You can build any kind of building for any purpose anywhere (I'm sure there's still restrictions, but there's no zones per se.)
States have wildly different speed limits on highways. Different levels of allowed alcohol.
This is just off the top of my head without googling, I'm sure there's probably even bigger examples as well.
Take a look at the US Census Bureau's methodology page for the Building Permits Survey.[1] They statistically impute the numbers from a subset of 20,100 building permit issuing authorities, because they cannot collect all of the distinct authorities in the country with different data collection and storage policies.
Federal databases of postal addresses don't really have any reason to maintain data on the structures.
Some fire fighting authorities have building layouts for recently built buildings. They may all have their own methods for storing the data, and the coverage is confusing enough that the bodies and budget authorities responsible for fighting any long lasting wild fire frequently change.
Properties lines are usually recorded and maintained at the county level, and enforced by a county court and sheriff at their direction, but this too is not the case everywhere.
It is not outlandish to think that there are multiple federal databases that include all of the data on buildings in the US, whether at the Department of Defense, or at multiple agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. However, it seems common that only data collected as a side effect of the regular course of doing government business are released to the public, but data sets created as part of some form of security-related goals are not released to the public.
I sadly agree that federalism is de facto dead as a framework of policy and ideology. But as a legal and bureaucratic infrastructure, it has quite refused to die, for better or for worse. City, county, and state governments still do their thing, and anybody dealing with property, construction, zoning, etc in any capacity will still need to negotiate through each of those layers separately.
I have to disagree. For sure, there is a lot stuff that is centralized at the federal level, but there is still a great deal of data managed at the county municipal level and there is a wide variety in how this data is managed (or not managed) and what format it is in. In the town where I live, they looked up my birth record (in order to provide me with an official birth certificate) in a large bound book. Most permits for construction are managed (at least in part) by the town, who knows where that data is stored. Hopefully most of it is submitted up to the state level.
Yep. As an example, higher level governments will attach stipulations to grants or other types of funding in order to “encourage” lower governments to do as they’d like them to. Our tax system is such that this almost always works.
Maybe "many people here" feel that what our military does has little to nothing to do with defending our country, and often puts us at more risk and/or makes the world a worse place.
This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.
The one time our country was attacked in recent memory was on 9/11/2001 and despite our ridiculously large "defense" we couldn't even get a F-16 or two scrambled to protect our biggest and richest city after the first plane hit? It was like 45 minutes later, and <<crickets>> .... Our military is simply not lined up around the border defending our country one bit, it is much too busy building and defending an empire around the world that, honestly, doesn't do that much for Main Street, USA.
And I suppose you think that our invading soveriegn nations and causing civilian deaths in the 6-figures doesn't piss off the next generation and lead to more terrorists? Oh, and we have a bad habit of losing weaponry in countries all over the world too...what happens to all that, whose hands does it fall into? I could go on. and on. and on. and on.
Why would a defense force put you more at risk? The world is not a gentle place and it takes less than 30 seconds of browsing international headlines to see that. The chaos is kept in check through violence and the military has a direct impact on the peace and freedoms enjoyed by the populace.
Two major nations are rapidly growing powerful tyrants with Putin and Xinping. Do you think these situations just magically go away? Military action has already been brewing in recent years and you either have an answer when it comes to blows or prepare for a lot of misery.
I've come to find that most people (in the US anyway) who think that the military only does harm have never really witnessed or experienced any violence or unrest to see how bad things can be, which is good for them and proof that it works, but it does lead to a strange disconnection as evidenced by the comments and votes.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but to play devil’s advocate: do you think invading Afghanistan and Iraq, destabilising the Middle East, and declaring “war on terror” has really made the world safer for Americans? I think the ideal you appeal to has been corrupted by commercial interests overriding security concerns.
Yes, I do think we have problems with certain commercial interests overriding public welfare, in pretty much all industries. Bad actors exist everywhere and unfortunately can cause much chaos in such a powerful force as the modern military.
That being said, yes, the world is safer than ever before. There have been many mishaps and sadly some of them are because of pulling back on military action prematurely, leading to a lack of control and a power vacuum that fills the void with much more turbulence than before. Proper leadership and direction still matters, but when it counts the US military is still capable and willing to keep its citizens and many others out of trouble anywhere on the planet, and there is a lot to be said for that.
Is our military capable? We've failed horrendously at two wars in Iraq and one war in Afghanistan. We like to claim that we defeated ISIS, but let's be real, we defeated ISIS in about the same way we defeated Germany, we let everybody else fight for us, then took the credit.
ISIS? PKK & YPG defeated ISIS, and as a thank you we're about to throw them under the bus to stay in the good graces of the Turkish dictator.
We hear a lot about the great might of the US military, and yes I will concede that we do manage to destroy a lot of countries, but we don't seem to win wars.
You cannot be serious?! PKK & YPG would have gotten absolutely crushed without american airpower. Nevermind that USSOF is on the ground, if I remember correctly there are Rangers and some USMC artillery in Syria as well. There were hundreds of airstrikes in the Siege of Kobane alone. You seem to completely misinformed.
The might of the US military is still beyond any other nation, even though that advantage is being threatened recently.
ISIS was very much defeated, and it was actually the lack of military followthrough that let it grow back, although it is still severely diminished. The citizens of those countries that were ravaged are incredibly thankful for US military assistance, and I advise you actually talk to some of them if you haven't before you pass judgement on what war you think was lost.
The US military is mighty, but not terribly effective. I mean, we're 17 years into the second gulf war. 17 years and we still can't pull-out because we screwed up the first one so royally.
I'm writing this from a refugee community center here in Istanbul, the Ad'Dar Center, where I volunteer a couple of hours every day helping helping kids with their lessons, especially in English and Math, cooking, making music, talking, and listening. (To a lesser extent I help people with paperwork and UN refugee processes, but I don't really have the patience for bureaucracy, so I leave that to the experts).
I'm not a political or military expert, but over the past five years 25% of my life was spent backpacking around the middle-east / balkans / black sea / eastern block regions studying languages and music, while the other 75% has been spent living / studying / working in Istanbul. I say this so that you know my perspective is not that of a SJW sipping $10 lattes while pigging out on $20 avocado toasts in SOMA. I haven't been in a war, but I've been through a coup, bribed my way through checkpoints, volunteered at refugee camps in Bulgaria, Greece & Albania, and have spoken to many hundreds of people who have been privvy 1st-hand to direct and indirect American "wars". Back stateside, I grew up in Michigan and 1/2 of our family friends were Afghani & Iraqi engineers who had fled to the US in the 1980s (the other 1/2 were white-trash patriotic biker gangs. Michigan is a weird place).
As you would expect, the feelings and views about America here are quite varied and diverse, but the two constants that come up in every conversation:
- America should stop policing the middle-east, we do more harm than good.
- Supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia makes us the real financiers of terrorism
- America is using the Kurds, our best allies in the war against terror, and will be stabbing them in the back at the first opportunity for political favor
ISIS isn't defeated, by the way, they've just re-branded.
Your comment history seems to show a made-up version of events where you also claim the US did nothing in WW2. I'm not sure what narrative you're trying to push but your personal history seems suspect on this basis, and the anonymous username doesn't help.
You're also conflating foreign policy with military strength. They are not the same and I'm talking about the latter. How that power is used and whether it's always the best idea can definitely be argued, but the fact that the power is necessary and that having it keeps the peace is most definitely not debatable.
When it comes down to it, there is no other military power willing and able to defend its own and others to such an extent, and that alone set it apart. Trying to weaken that stature will only result in greater harm for both US and foreign citizens.
Ignoring your first two comments because they're boring. The third one, can you give me a good argument as to why it is not possible to be "too mighty"? Does this state not just create a heightened sense of fear amongst those countries who see us for the warmongers we are?
By all means, have a strong national defense, but at some point the rest of the world will decide it's time to join together to destroy the 'murikkkan empire? The rest of the world would be a lot happier without having our freedom forced upon them through violence.
The whole thing is great, but your comment particularly reminded me of 4:
“To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.”
30 seconds of glancing at the international news is enough to see that the world is a much more peaceful place than it was in the early 20th century, say.
It is definitely necessary to have a military, even if only as a deterrent, but it can also be counter-productive to depend on the military too much. Those aren’t contradictory statements.
Police != military. Those principles don't really apply here as they are different forces both in duty and power.
A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually pull off what it claims, otherwise it very quickly loses standing. It's far better to have the ability to defend and never need it then to be wishing you had it when something goes wrong.
There is no such world where you don't depend on the military. The world is literally controlled through violence. Everything comes down to either direct action or the threat of it (backed by the capabilities as mentioned). Sure you can avoid a lot through diplomatic means, and we should always look for peaceful solutions, but reducing military power is only done at your peril.
The US is (or was) often referred to as the world’s policeman. I think it’s a fairly useful analogy.
Police certainly can (and often do) control the populace through violence and intimidation. It’s also possible to reduce crime via cooperation and consent.
On the world stage, you can regard nations as individual actors and think about what those actors can do to coexist peacefully. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a brutal “survival of the fittest” struggle. The same strategies used by individuals could work at the nation state level too. And they do! Look at the role of treaties, trade deals, mutual migration, art and literature, economic interdependence, etc in maintaining the peace.
I am definitely not saying we don’t need a military. We sometimes need armed police too. But not every police officer needs to carry a gun around.
I don't see how it's useful because it assumes the world is 1 country and we're only policing internally. Everything changes when you take away international borders and the idea of separate nations.
Regardless, I'm not sure where you disagree with the rest of my comment because I do say that diplomacy should come first, but it would be denying reality to suggest that the underlying foundation is not built upon military might and the threat of world-ending firepower. That is the real force keeping things civil and any upset to that balance can cause chaos real quick.
Peace never lasts forever, so you either have a strong military and hopefully never have to use it, or you're just counting down the days until pain and suffering are at your doorstep.
A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually pull off what it claims
Consider that the US military has lost every war since it was one of the victors of WW2 along with the UK and Russia. And it didn’t make any difference. All those wars were entirely optional and the consequences of losing them were nonexistent. So what’s it all for, really?
I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. The world isn't static so of course there were consequences.
I'm not saying the military is perfect or that everything it does is right (and much of that is due to the whims of leadership), but that having a strong military is an option that most wish they had because they see first-hand what it's like without. There is no substitute for that power and it's easy to overlook in the several decades and generations of relative peace that has endured so far.
When America was defeated in Vietnam, the next thing that happened was not the NVA burning down the White House. In fact there was never any possibility of that happening nor a threat to the US mainland.
So every other country is some tiny 3rd world nation? You do realize there are major superpowers that are currently kept at bay through the promise of force? Or do you think they’re just being nice?
Nuclear arsenals are part of the military, and what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost?
Let's not conflate foreign policy and politics with military might. Things can go wrong from bad leadership regardless of what powers are at command, but those powers at the same time guarantee a certain level of safety and capability on behalf of the nation's interests. I don't see how you can deny that with any sense of reality.
what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost?
There's no sign of a stable liberal secular democracy emerging anytime soon in Afghanistan or Iraq is there? At the cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars if you only want to focus on material things. But you can point at an American campaign, Somalia, Vietnam as I've mentioned, any adventures in Latin America... And then there's Ukraine, whose territorial integrity America guaranteed in return for giving up its own nuclear weapons, and yet the Russians waltzed in an annexed the Crimea without any trouble at all.
America does all these things when it is in no danger itself, and millions upon millions of innocent people die because of it, and that is why people have misgivings about working on drone targeting.
I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat. You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic.
I agree foreign policy needs work, and there is harm caused, but that has nothing to do with military strength. Perhaps this conflation is the real issue with these threads as people can't seem to separate power and capabilities from its application.
I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat
Yes that's fine. If America were facing an existential threat. Defence of one's home/property is the fundamental human right that is the basis of all rights. No question from me there.
You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic.
I believe they are inextricably linked. I would wager many of those reluctant to work on dronetech right now, in the present circumstances of its use, would be perfectly willing to do so if the enemy really were at the gates.
That's the thing, a strong defense keeps the enemy from ever getting to the gates in the first place. If you wait until they're already there, it's too late. In the age of AI delivering exponential advancements, time is only more important.
Kidding aside:
It has already been shown that every century is less violent than the preceding one. This has nothing to do with military per se, but a lot to do with improvement in social norms helped by technologies. Steven Pinker is a good debater on that topic.
Evidence of what? The American people are safe and sound and the interests of America are still protected, and very few countries even think about threatening us here, thanks to a strong military force.
Those ares you mentioned would be better off if they had a strong military to keep order and protect their citizens.
Strange. I've come to find that most who think the modern military is primarily a "defense force" are wholly deluded about what the history actually does and its history.
Sure, it acts in the interests of the state, and as a citizen of that state, it acts in my interests, one of which is my defense. It's a complex definition but I'm interested in what you think is so deluded?
To be fair, America didn't really win WW2, we hardly even fought, mostly we just supplied Hitler with arms, and when that wasn't fashionable anymore, we supplied the allies with arms.. Then we swooped in at the end to take all the credit and the fat construction contracts.
In the 20s and the early 30s (that is to say, before Hitler rose to power), the US brokered efforts to reduce the burden of WWI reparations, as well as inject loans into Germany to help its moribund economy. FDR was opposed to Hitler, and would have brought the US into the war earlier, but US public opinion was firmly isolationist. Even then, the US was neutral really in name only, as it devised conditions for selling weapons that amounted to "only the UK can buy them." Yes, the US logistical support to the Allies was crucial both to keeping them collapsing and actually decisively winning the war, but the US military did prove superior to both Axis and other Allies in several regards, most notably artillery, amphibious assaults, and carrier operations.
Does this still have any relation to my post earlier in the tread, or is this some different topic you're talking about? Because it sounds as if you're saying that I'm arguing everyone should stop criticising YouTube.
Disgusting