s_y_n_t_a_x

He's been pretty tough on them compared to past presidents with the 25% tariff, plus he has a sanction bill coming to his desk to sign.

> The Senate just passed a bill that further sanctions China by authorizing the Treasury Department to identify Chinese banks and financial firms which enable the Communist Party regime, and punish them by restricting their access to the US dollar and visas for their executives.

> Unlike past Chinese sanction bills, the restrictions will apply not just to individuals, but the banks that employ them. And it will apply not just to Chinese-owned banks, but subsidiaries of American companies operating in the country.

Ah that makes sense. I have a tinge of that but it's probably memories. Eventually we will move out when family is of less focus.

We're young now so it was a good idea to have family close. Eventually we're going to move somewhere even more remote.

As a counter anecdote, I did the same thing and I love the experience.

The difference is I bought a house nearby. It's actually been really nice, but I've always loved small towns and hated the city.

I'll second the statement:

> And those kids are mostly boys whose social behavior is a little bit on the spectrum

I a lot of us are on the spectrum, more-so than other humans.

It's that puzzle gene in us that makes us want to obsess until we figure out the problem.

I've also noticed more cases of bipolar disorder and depression depicted here than in other communities.

There's so few of us compared to others because we are wired differently.

Your voter registration is public record.

They build this sample data by compiling huge swaths of public records and buying private data.

Your political affiliation is not the worst of it, they can have the school your child goes to, the grocery store you visit, anything.

The worst really isn't the violation of privacy, it's the propaganda.

Most of the time the surveys themselves were meant to push information, the questions and answers were usually loaded.

Source: worked as a CATI technician, typist, and interviewer for a survey company in college.

Keyword is "former". She probably left because of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_E._Dugan#Potential_conf...

I don't think a single person that no longer works there can represent the entire process of an agency.

If anything, Facebook's building 8, only reflects badly on her and Facebook.

Ah you used the term "slowdown-bot" so I figured you had specific knowledge.

Posting 3 comments in half a day is not really testing the limits, there is plenty of chill time.

I don't disagree that everyone should think carefully about there responses to others, I certainly do.

The slowdown for me is about 3 posts every 5 hours it seems. I'm not aware of the exact limits, do you know?

> but you know what you meant.

Yes I know what I meant because I wrote it, I'm telling you that you interpreted wrong.

> I didn't take the pro gun-confiscation side in that comment.

You didn't have to, you were defending the confiscation process. As another user pointed out to you, the government asking before forcing to take your guns is no different than a bank robber passing a note to the clerk with a threat written on it.

> It more neoliberal (lower taxes, less social safety net)

I don't ever see anyone on here advocating for less regulation and lower taxes. I mainly see marxists, socialists, and liberals.

> Outside of the ethno-nationalists, most of those viewpoints don't get downvoted unless they use personally offensive rhetoric

That's convenient and untrue. No, not all viewpoints that get downvoted are offensive unless you count them being offensive to the opposing political ideology.

You misconstrued that quote, all that sentence meant was I'm fine with defending sides that I know are unpopular and will lose me karma.

Most importantly to gain karma you need to choose the "correct" side, like you do. Ya'know, the Beto gun confiscation side.

If you go against the crowd you will be downvoted, period. That's no surprise, I'm just giving you guys insight what it's like outside the bubble. It's definitely not mainstream libertarian here.

My point to GP was that libertarian views are not popular, I don't really care about karma.

I love discussing all topics on HN that I'm passionate and informed about, including politics.

When I do see political topics (which is often these days) and such a one sided view, I feel the need to voice the other side.

As a libertarian with -10 karma, this comment is hilariously wrong (I had a lot more before I started speaking my mind)

This site, like most, is a liberal echo chamber.

Though I will say it's still a decent place to have a debate as long as you are fine with fighting 10v1 and going negative, which I am.

The most frustrating thing is the post limit you run into when you get flagged/negative karma. It's really annoying to be in a debate and not be able to reply. I abuse the edit feature to get around it, but that's limited.

Also the ability to only downvote with 500+ karma leads to group think. Only the high karma users with the popular opinions can downvote, and they certainly use it.

By The Economist, so it means nothing.

Yes, thank you for clarifying your sweeping statements so we could have a conversation :)

> I do think there are at least two other possible solutions than getting rid of police unions entirely

There is no other solution, it's the corrupt union leaders protecting these cops.

The cop that killed Floyd had 17 complaints, his union protected him from being fired. The unions essentially killed Floyd.

There aren't cartel wars going on in the UK, but there is terrorism so I'm not sure whether or not UK should or does have swat/armed police.

It's not feasible to take guns away from cops here, there are too many criminals with guns, all major cartels are in Houston for example. MS-13 operates in at least 30 states.

I understand everyone wants to feel like they need to argue about this, but no one is saying these specific cops that do harm shouldn't be punished.

No group, including the police, are the problem, individual humans (including union leaders and specific politicians) are the problem.

tldr: get rid of the police unions and replace the local Democratic leadership in the cities that these events happen in to solve the issue.

The police do have weapons and armor, that's not disputed nor inherently bad. Citizens can also have weapons and armor for self-defense per our Second Amendment.

Police here need those tools because there are cartels like MS-13 and other dangerous criminals they have to face on a daily basis.

Bad cops with lots of complaints are protected by police unions, that's the main problem. Get rid of those and you'll be able to fire the bad apples.

Protesters may get hurt, many of them bring it on themselves by not dispersing after a few bad apples stir things up by throwing rocks/bottles of cement/etc.

We need to call out the people disrupting the protests, not the cops trying to protect the protesters from the rioters.

Change your mind of what? That police aren't all evil people?

I live in a small town of 6,000 people with a 1/3rd black, hispanic, and white population and everything is fine here.

It's only poorly run Democratic cities with these policing problems, because of the police unions and lack of funding/leadership.

Despite your travels, your view of America is incomplete.

You seem to have a distorted view of America.

You should probably live here before you pass judgement.

Listening to the echo chamber here and the mainstream news that comes out of America is not the full picture.

Because those are your descriptions, which not everyone agrees with, especially since you're lumping huge groups of people together.

Either way, talking about a group should not get you fired, period.

The fact that you think it matters which one is the problem.

Yes I did read your next statement and many people do have that rigor, this is not something you can mindread. If you don't check the news you read then it's on you.

It's certainly not so bad that we need to censor politicians because SO MANY people can't think for themselves.

We had 8 years of Obama, I didn't hear anything about anyone needing censoring, only when we have a Republican in office do we need to think about censoring...

When they start censoring the Democrats constant lies then I'll believe you want a legitimate debate. Don't worry the Dems will provide you with their very own fact checker!

I wouldn't assume, especially when it's assuming about 327 million people's ideology and thought process.

> People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like.

This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths as you'd like to believe.

> If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas.

> I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires.

So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want?

You just admitted it's hard to judge another persons desires.

This all misses the main point. This mob agenda targets Republicans and hoists Democrats and their tech CEO/shareholder puppets to the position of Ministry of Truth.

It's incredibly obvious that the other platforms fell into line and Facebook is receiving the mob's attention until they submit as well. This isn't about the wellbeing of people or you knowing best, it's about power-grabbing, corruption, and censorship.

I'm glad Zuck is taking this stance and I'm glad he has a majority.

Twitter is a publicly listed corporation as well (since 2013) so that argument makes no sense:

https://thenextweb.com/twitter/2013/11/07/twitter-just-becam...

Either way, that's a strange moral line to take on all of this, whether a company is public or not.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy and the double standard.

Twitter has been in the news cycle for censoring/manipulating tweets of Trump. On HN I see a lot of people defending this decision by noting they are a private company and you can switch social media services if you want.

It seems you cannot switch services, the mob will always find you and push their "ethics" and "facts" onto you.

So Twitter is a private company and can do whatever it wants but when it comes to FB making decisions about free speech we need to force them into submission?

If you don't like it, move to another platform, isn't that what you guys always say? :)

We shouldn't give up our freedoms because you think some people can't think for themselves.

They can think for themselves, you just don't understand their thoughts & perspective through your bias/bubble.

Censoring is wrong, period. Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.

React isn't bound to web, there's quite a few React Native targets (ios, android, macos, windows, qt, gtk)

I recommend React when making an app, web or otherwise.

I recommend vanilla HTML + CSS with optional JS when making a website.

I think it's plausible someone on his social media campaign saw banners with an upside-down red triangle.

I love how the goal post is moved to whether or not one existed to mind-reading WHY he might have been targeting people deliberately or why me might have used a niche Antifa logo.

edit ----

I'm sure Antifa groups attack the campaign on the same media platforms they share.

Maybe they saw it in a message or posted on a wall, who knows. The fact is you don't and I don't, why are we trying to mind-read why he might have done the worst case obscure scenario that someone suggested.

The more outlandish claim is that he was trying to demean the Jewish population with a symbol used during the holocaust.

You argue that his campaign couldn't have found this antifa logo, I argue that they weren't thinking about this holocaust symbol.

That is AN Antifa symbol.

I thought a couple weeks ago we were arguing whether Antifa existed or was a splintered group, now they have an official logo?

The fact the logo exists and an Antifa group used an upside-down red triangle gives plausibility to the Trump campaign's reasoning.

Those two examples was just a few minutes of searching, I'm sure there are others.

Maybe we can ask the Antifa group WHY they decided to use that triangle.

Thank you for your anecdote, but I've posted two examples, one active FB group.

It seems to be mainly a European usage, but it exists.

I don't see how pointing out a symbol a group uses is attacking them.

I also don't think equating yourself and antifa to the struggle of the holocaust and slavery is going to win any minds over.

It's wrong, there are Antifa groups that use an upside down red triangle:

https://www.facebook.com/antifautrecht/

https://afanl.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/english-3-2-2018-anti...

Seems like Facebook jumped the gun on this and assumed the worst.

-- reply @ GP edit --

> Rather than making the association that this leftist group deserves to have political concentration camp tag?

Yeah I believe your hypothesis is crazy and needs more evidence before jumping to such a wild assumption. That's why you word vomit with events that loosely relate to concentration camps and 88 words to support your already loose conspiracy theory.

Ironic that NOW this symbol will be used against socialists since the WSJ and Facebook just made it mainstream and assumed that connection.

No one would have never thought of this connection if FB wouldn't have flagged it and the WSJ didn't immediately report it. Can you honestly say you had this holocaust knowledge? To assume that on everyone and to go further and assume malicious intent is even more dishonest.

People wanted this to be so true, but you are all conspiracy theorists today.