whatthesmack

> Capitalism means capital that earns for you while you sleep.

That's a big assumption. Not all capital earns for you while you sleep.

> Those who benefit the most from the system should pay for it.

That's also a big assumption. Just because one has capital does not mean they're benefiting from the regime they're currently under.

These (additional 207 million people pushed to extreme poverty) are the type of numbers that make me wonder why we are permitting the economic impact of lockdowns. If the side effects of the "lockdown cure" are going to be exorbitant poverty and starvation, doesn't that make the cure worse than the disease?

In addition to this article, UNICEF says[0] up to 132 million people will face starvation related to the lockdowns in 2020.

Just cursory searching yields the current COVID-19 death count at 1.6m[1] (a total which is disputed due to the "died from COVID-19" vs "died with COVID-19" distinction).

It seems like the starvation and poverty numbers from the lockdowns are likely to exceed any potential COVID-19 death count (even with no lockdowns).

And none of the aforementioned includes lockdown-related suicides, lack of medical care for existing medical conditions, and other impacts from being isolated or stuck inside.

Is this all emotional/fear-based/CYA decision making? I keep hearing "follow the science", but it doesn't seem like anybody is doing that at a basic life-saving or economic level. It feels like I'm going crazy, because none of the decisions being made make sense to me and are resulting in significant suffering and death.

It would be great to learn more if there are things I am overlooking here, but I've just been baffled lately.

[0] https://data.unicef.org/resources/sofi-2020/

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I get the sense that you're applying your feelings to a group you don't like.

As a conservative, I can say that I am interested in safety as much as anyone. I certainly don't want to become a victim of an avoidable incident, and I don't want anyone else to become a victim either.

> American conservatives tend to dislike safety (people should be responsible for their own safety, regulation will slow down business and make everyone worse off)

People being responsible for their own well-being certainly doesn't imply a dislike of safety. It's acknowledging a reality that ultimately we are responsible for our own fates. And it certainly doesn't rubber-stamp fraud, as is the case here where companies literally lied about the leveling of their product. In addition, it does not allow the government to shirk responsibility for requiring the use of the dangerous product in this case.

> it’s not the government’s job to decide what truth is

Allowing governments free reign to determine truth has historically led to immense suffering and hundreds of millions of documented deaths.

It seems like all of the actions to "rectify" the aforementioned issues clearly involve threats to democracy and free speech.

For example, the far-left "woke" interpretation has historically made use of and encouraged "cancel culture" to punish people that disagree with that worldview, which deprives them of their right to free speech. This is not imagined -- many people's lives have been destroyed because of this. Free speech is not just the First Amendment in the US... it is a tradition upheld in a plethora of ways, public and private.

In addition, not everybody agrees with the theory of inherent privilege, as it's often used to overlook or devalue the hard work of others with whom one disagrees.

Many people of all backgrounds are frightened by what they are seeing of the far-left "woke" view.

This source[0] shows the rate of mask wearing in public in the US far exceeds the average of Europe. I'm not sure it's "how American" insomuch as it's "how unfortunate this virus was allowed to spread so long before the world was told about it".

[0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/07/...

Then it seems it's time Salesforce finally picked up Okta, too :)

The ACLU probably would be involved already, but they don't care about the 2nd amendment for some reason. It's a "lesser" constitutional right it seems...

No thank you. I like my constitutional rights that are actually taken semi-seriously by my fellow citizens and the leaders we elect.

I'm surprised the article doesn't cover the issue of "mob rule" as a negative thing that the founders intended to avoid. Leaving the whole country to be ran by some coastal/leftist states and forever disregarding the rest of the country doesn't quite seem like a fair alternative to the electoral college method. As-is, we have a mix of candidates from both major parties that wind up winning. Do we really want one-party rule?

How did you get demonization of a billion people out of that comment? Saying "China is not our friend" is very clearly referring to the country, which is very clearly ran by the CCP, which I think is the group most people have a beef with.

And then some people (myself included) factor in externalities and realize more deaths have occurred because of the lockdowns (depression, lack of medical care, malnutrition, homelessness). Some of us are even more concerned with human lives than looking at the small picture of only the benefits of lockdown.

You may have jumped over a few good things about the USA...

Not sure about other folks, but what they said makes sense to me.

Merit used to be a thing, but now we literally have companies that hire people based on their skin color (and in some places, laws that require it). Some of us have a problem with making such decisions with regards to a person's race or skin color or other immutable human attributes.

The problem with this logic, of course, is that it assumes somebody has a right to not be infected while in a public area. That "somebody" is also in a public area, so the risk is entirely by their own choice. They don't know who could be infected, but they're out in public anyways. The responsibility for the risk that "somebody" undertakes cannot simply be laid at a different person's feet.

> Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech.

That's a commonly-held belief, but runs contrary to the history and law behind the quote. That particular quote was an example in a US Supreme Court case that was decided poorly and later changed (in 1969 I think). In the US, I believe threats of violence or harm are covered by the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". So the speech has to meet several qualifications to "not be free speech". What those people were doing on Facebook in Brazil would very likely be considered protected speech in the US. Not that what applies in the US applies to Brazil, but since the quote was from a US case, I figured it was with commenting.

Here's a good article about the quote's history: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

My thoughts exactly. When they’re being violent and destroying things, does it really come as a surprise that they’re getting arrested?

Yeah, because we’re tired of mayors and governors letting the real fascists own the streets, causing untold violence and damage. If those folks are breaking the law, it should be no surprise when they’re placed under arrest.

I wish I could upvote this more. Many folks here fancy themselves as intellectual people, yet they do backflips in logic to justify silencing voices they find repugnant or inconvenient. The concept of free speech simply cannot have exceptions, conditions, or predications. It’s only a marketplace of ideas if the loud or powerful voices aren’t silencing and banning voices that might not be as popular. Indeed, this is how democracy dies.

Could you go into more detail or provide any resources/blogs on this? We're lightweight users of EKS and I'm interested in avoiding the issues you mentioned.

> This all happened and permanently changed the debate. Free speech is poisoned these days and we can't simply ignore that.

Even if that is the case, it shouldn’t mean we give up on free speech and allow it to be effectively eliminated “so it can be saved”. Free speech with some censorship is just censorship.

A robust public debate is how ideas are fairly brought out and given an opportunity to thrive or die. Having Twitter or a government or “fact checker” or any other person/organization in the middle adding their outsized influence to the picture brings the whole debate out of balance. Why is Jack’s voice worth 1000x more than yours? Because he’s more “enlightened”?

This doesn't invalidate anything stated in the comment you were replying to.

> American politics is shifted so far to the right

I saw this and stopped reading. Just about spit out my coffee. Do people really think American politics are shifting to the right, when somebody like Bernie Sanders for President was unimaginable 15 years ago, yet is somewhat popular today?

Who/what decides who is “misinformed”. Again, there needs to be a gatekeeper if you go that direction, and that direction leads to exactly what the mainstream media of today is.

But you didn’t fly until they could positively identify who you are. If they couldn’t identify who you are, you wouldn’t have been on those airplanes.

Sure, unless you’re one of those restaurants that wants their own app.

We have a few thousand apps on the App Store and got bit by this today.

The SDK is very useful for a smooth login experience if the user has the Facebook app installed, because your app can offer Facebook as a login option, then just pop the user over to the Facebook app, they can tap “okay” (or whatever), and jump back to your app.

That said, we’re going to rip this thing out of our apps ASAP. No framework should be calling network code in “+load”. The convenience for the user (and the dirty tracking Facebook apparently does) is just not worth the trade-off of handing our app’s stability over to Facebook.

If we're both in public, we're both accepting a level of risk. Your decision to accept that level of risk is not an infringement by another person.

Don’t forget to take into account that religious liberty is a real thing in the US... literally the first thing spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That’s why the court considered the state commission’s bias against the religious person’s exercise of their sincerely held belief. Plus, you know, the whole “state can’t compel speech” thing (also part of the Bill of Rights) kind of makes the resulting decision pretty unsurprising.

Apologies... didn't read into the NIST requirement. Out of curiosity, what do you normally implement that meets that requirement? Forcing all traffic when there is no security benefit (what is the advantage of getting to https://news.ycombinator.com through the VPN?) seems ripe for a compensating control.

Split tunneling is the answer here. Many folks configure their VPN solutions that way. That's exactly what I do at my present employer... traffic meant for VPN goes over VPN, and everything else gets routed through the client's internet connection.