> Would you have brought up other social/political/environmental challenges that Texas faces (oh i don't know, like racial equity, or floods)?
Yes. For examples, look at the top comments for the top three HN articles on Foxconn in Wisconsin.
Yes. For examples, look at the top comments for the top three HN articles on Foxconn in Wisconsin.
1. I did a google search of "site:news.ycombinator.com Foxconn in Wisconsin", and opened the top 3 links.
2. first link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19037625. The top comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038615) seems to be about cronyism and corruption in the terms offered to Foxconn by the Wisconsis government? I could be a bit off, i haven't followed that story closely. But, and this is important, its not about generalized corruption, its about corruption on this Foxconn deal!
3. second link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18328772. here the top comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18329445) is directly quoting the article about Foxconn getting exemptions from the environmental laws in Wisconsin. This is directly relevant to the article posted, again not about generic environmental concerns.
4. third link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19630358. This one doesn't have much commentary, but here we see irrelevant comments which are not directly tied to the article, which are much in the vein of the original comment above.
Does that help clarify my position, and why comments of this nature are not helpful? Its totally fine to bring up environmental/social/political concerns, if they are relevant. They are not in this case.