anoonmoose

I don't agree with that. If your DDoS prevents me from using services I paid for, I could rightfully sue you in small claims for the damages. They'd be small- a percentage of a monthly Internet bill. It's still damages.

According to the FBI, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 proves you wrong, and I'm going to believe fbi.gov over anonymous HN commenters 99 times outta 100. Even if you think you're right because you think some part of the law is unconstitutional, or the way you worded the question was specifically chosen such that you think it doesn't fall under this law, or something I am not aware of idk, I don't believe that the FBI agrees with you, and they're the ones who would be charging me/my kids.

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/anchorage/fbi-i...

There may be other Googleable reports, but no, that anonymously written press release that only quotes one of his political opponents is not "a report". If it's so easy to find good sources for accusations against him, perhaps you should have lead with one of them instead of such useless exhibit.

...and? You just described several hundred members of Congress. There's nothing notorious about any of that. It's swamp-standard.

Did you, though? Is that a report? Or, is it a press release, written pseudonymously, on a local blog no one has ever heard of, that only quotes one of Gottheimer's political opponents, who is accusing him of doing something that is extremely common? Note that last part- even if I took every word of that as gospel truth (which I have no reason to do), what is "notoriously corrupt" about doing something that I think we all think most of Congress is doing?

I searched..."Josh Gottheimer corrupt". And that certainly didn't come up. But again...that's not a very convincing link. It's literally just his opponent saying "he's corrupt".

I don't really wanna get into a political flamewar but I think for a person to be accurately called "notoriously corrupt" I should pretty easily be able to find...I dunno, at least an accusation of corruption somewhere, if not some actual punishments for actual corruption. This dude's Wikipedia article doesn't even have a "controversy" section...hell, I tried searching his name plus the word "corrupt" and still couldn't find anything that justified that. Just one breathless opinion piece from Jonathan Chait about how people voting for Gottheimer would be better served by the opposite party.

fwiw, I had never heard of him before I looked him up. If I had to guess I'd say your label was based on some combo of political donations received and political positions taken but that seems like standard to below average corruption for Congress to me lol.

For this article, from this source? Nah. Never heard of them before and the content isn't that interesting.

Can't read without paying, won't pay $13/mo to read. OP, do you subscribe, can you tell us why?

Confirmation bias + thanks for demonstrating exactly why this shouldn't have been posted on HN

I said what I said because I assumed it wouldn't be that popular and/or the flamewar detectors would hit. It would appear I was correct.

Inflammatory comments made by a non-expert from a low-quality news source. Will be removed from the front page by the next time I check, I assume.

Yup, using your link and this one [1] it would not be unreasonable to estimate that his friend is in the 98% or 99% percentile of earners in the UK.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f...

Reddit has accused innocent people of worse in the past.

The example you described is handled by our current system. (For the moment, let's put aside whether or not the system always works as intended). Evidence isn't just "brought to court by someone else". It doesn't just appear. Someone needs to be saying "this is the accused saying this"- during the discovery process before the trial the defense will have an opportunity to refute that claim. If it's another witness, they will be cross-examined by the defense and the jury will need to decide if the testimony is credible or not. If they lie, they will have committed perjury, and all of what I just said is true (roughly, I'm not a lawyer) whether you use AI or a good voice actor.

Did you see the article on HN a few days ago about how legal marijuana purchases in the US fell from 2021 to 2022? There was a fair bit of debate around why exactly that was but I personally do think that what you mentioned is a part of it.

edit: here's the comments section https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35788120

Second paragraph states they are selling the homes, not renting them. You don't have to sell if you're fired, but the parent company gets right of first refusal at market rate for four years. So these concerns as articulated seem moot.

I put off going out of state to buy for a few months when I knew my state was opening up shops soon. Obviously that can't be the entire reason, but I think stuff like that combined with people having more interest when the shops are new combined with the impacts of inflation could easily result in a tiny occasional YoY dip.

I'll ignore the rudeness and respond to the substance- they are not making their home livable, it's in a warzone, it'll still be unlivable but with electricity. And that is not at no cost- they are creating an extremely dangerous situation that could be deadly to people and animals. I might be persuadable if they were the only people who could be hurt by what they're doing but it's a danger to the public. It's not about the formula, it's about the fact that they don't know enough to appreciate the danger of what they're doing.

This isn't even a hacker, though! This is a person who isn't capable of doing extremely basic electrical calculations. It'd be a totally different topic if it was a person who I thought fully appreciated the danger of what they're doing. If you can't calculate the voltage drop over a length of cable you should not be wiring your own deadly AC voltages. I'm willing to die on that hill.

All three of the warnings and concerns you provided are extremely mild compared to the warning/concern that should actually be attached to this post: "if you fuck up while working on this you can easily die, and if anyone who doesn't know the danger you have created exists and interacts with it they can easily die". Emphasis on the easily part. Someone trips in the backyard, etc. I understand OP is desperate but I think putting this info out in the world is legit more likely to cause harm than good.

While it's unfortunate that neither this nor any other amount of evidence are likely to convince Lindell et al that they're wrong, at least we can hope that they'll continue to hoist themselves on their on petards.

I mean on the one hand, there's a pretty famous meme about "so you participate in society? Curious!" that is relevant to your comment.

On the other hand, I do think your comment is more fair than most cases where that is deployed. The person you're responding to has commented on HN six times in the last few hours. They're not a casual user, the account is newer than mine but has much more karma. And the comparison elsewhere to Jesus in the temple...haha, no, this is just more vitriol on the pile.

I agree that it was ineffective, that's why I think you should put that link in your bio- I don't think nearly as many people would waste much time talking to you if they were just linked to why you were banned instead of only seeing your biased version of it.

I think you should toss this link in your bio so people can see why dang banned you twice.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34018795

either would be silly tbh

Dear guy who brags about ban evasion in his profile on his 3-month old account: thanks for getting me to check if HN had a block button.

The policy I linked isn't new, just recently updated- they started wading into those waters a long time ago.

you are asserting that having ever worked with the government necessarily means that you are silently, privately doing their editorial bidding on their behalf and I do not think that is reasonable or appropriate

Yes, I am going to argue that that does not prove the new labelling correct. You're assuming bad faith, and using ad hominem to do it.

Folks, this is what he's calling a "US Government propaganda bureau": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media

Just read Lansing's bio, trasz3 is all over the place mischaracterizing him.

https://www.npr.org/people/770270513/john-lansing

Here's Twitter's old definition of who is and isn't "state-affiliated". They have since changed it. Note that NPR was literally used as an example of someone who receives state funds but is not "state-affiliated".

"State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy."

https://web.archive.org/web/20230404115255/https:/help.twitt...