acct1771

Or scrape/API, at most.

Interesting choice of adjective, haha

Could it be that people there are simply more responsible/comfortable in life in many ways that US etc citizens are not?

The people who have toddlers and don't use high shelves with no crawl-up access, or something to shove toward the shelf to crawl up to it, should be shot and killed by toddlers.

Say hello to Darwin for me.

I agree with this, and will add:

Not everyone will see every thread on a topic. Some may only see a TSA thread on HN once a month or quarter, if they're a light user.

The repetition is indicative of the community's feeling a topic is important. And that's what people come here for. To see what this community thinks is important.

Nope.

But they'd disappear the dwindling people that still have the courage (in the face of almost certain death) who shared the story on WeChat etc shortly afterward.

I think if you post a reminder such as you did here, to be civil and in pursuit of understanding (instead of flames) on this topic, and perhaps of the intricacies that I mentioned, you'll end up trending the comments towards your desired range.

Thanks for caring, and discussing, sir.

We need to care about governance beforehand.

Tax laws are what you're looking to change.

See USA's FTC etc - we take our fair share of drive by fines, and change nothing afterwards.

Doubt it'll happen in this case...people want blood from Google or FB, and they're going to get it.

Other commenters had it right, though - ISPs, and lobbyists should be hanging next to them.

I don't.

We don't, from what I've seen.

We've (the "community"?) have been trying to build/have built phones without baseband backdoors/hardware killswitches, chips without Intel Management Engine, etc.

Feel free to check out those threads if you've missed them.

This isn't about a specific case, by the way. This is the reality of the state of chip production.

98%+ of us have no authority to speak on what microcode is doing on 98%+ of chips out there.

Please do not speak generally and authoritively.

Happy to see this discussed on HN.

Please, please read this to get a better understanding for yourself: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

Yeah, you are/were missing a lot, then.

See: Utah.

...just not by you.

They'd only care if money gained - PR lost == profit.

And Google had connections to which large organizations from their start that gave them competitive advantage in multiple areas?

Can you be more clear about the specifics?

I don't like the general tone, but agree with the sentiment, and it seems tough to share without addressing the user personally, but was that it?

Source is probably controversial, but I'm interested in refutations: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

This is a direct result of the disinformation regarding this story by both supporters and detractors of Assange.

Details are repeatedly argued because low-info headlines kept being released by media conglomerates, and, even the readers here have relied on those.

> reroute the birth canal so that it does not pass through the pelvic opening.

Go on.

You're appreciated.

"The State Department."

Say why.

Not only is it throwing off hormone/endocrine production, the toxins that have been stored in the fat cells are all being filtered through the body at the time of breakdown.

Quite the opposite - I know how easily those administrating a system can bias it.

Until we can enforce use of/non-deletion of footage from body cams, I think policing and governing with AI is a tick out of our depth, as a society.

But it's just as hypocritical.

Is this a good thing?

Public transportation is a good answer, for this specific example, although little you personally can do about that today.

Wait until you start reading multiple sources for each and every story, and start to see the (lack of) consistency of larger media fact-checking.