Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | EvaK_de's commentslogin

"being tough on Russia" is very far from "aggressively rallying for war with Russia".


Personally that's how i interpreted her posture. It may have been all for show, but who knows.


When Hillary was running, Russia had just invaded Ukraine the first time. So Russia intervened in US elections to get someone more pliant elected. This war and any “aggressive” posture toward Russia is entirely of Moscow’s making.


Russiagate has been handily debunked, and its premise was always stupid. No country on Earth has meddled in nearly the number of foreign elections as the USA. This is universally understood history. It’s not up for debate. Only the propagandized American domestic population would have even considered Russiagate a newsworthy scandal. And only the propagandized American domestic population would have interpreted it as anything short of a failure on the part of America’s own leadership and commercialized election system.


Ah yes. "Debunked". There's literally no serious doubts about whether Russia interfered to assist the Trump campaign. The only real question was whether any of it was coordinated.

Who spear-fished Podesta again? As well as the DNC? And 4,000 other Clinton-related email addresses? And why did that same group also attack the World Anti-Doping Agency, MH17 researchers, senior NATO members and Russian political opposition and journalists?[1]

Who was Manafort providing internal polling data to, and why was that worth forgiving $20 million worth of loans? [2]

When even the Republican Senate Intelligence committee has this to say, it's clearly "debunked"[3];

> The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Parts of this effort are outlined in the Committee's earlier volumes on election security, social media, the Obama Administration's response to the threat, and the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.

Here's what Mueller had to say, sure, "debunked"[4]:

> The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month.

[1] - https://www.secureworks.com/research/iron-twilight-supports-...

[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/manafort-rus...

[3] -https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[4] - https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download


"Shadow DOM" has the wrong description, I think: "Web Components is a suite of different technologies allowing you to create reusable custom elements — with their functionality encapsulated away from the rest of your code — and utilize them in your web apps."


Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better.


But the symptoms could.


They already did, thanks to the provisions of his current imprisonment. The ruling is based on those provisions almost surely removed upon extradition, guaranteeing that his "symptoms" would reappear. To put it extremely mildly.


I was simply replying to

> Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better

As someone diagnosed in the spectrum it totally can.


This poll only had about 400 self-selected participants. That doesn't make for reliable numbers at all.


The book by DFW sounds interesting, but all I could find is "Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity". Is that it?


Sorry yea, I misremembered the title when I was commenting.


Ugly and somewhat reminiscient of the early 2000s


Worth the read, but the first pic is not for the faint of heart - just a warning.


Sometimes Hacker News feels like a really cold place. Today is one of those days - and the tone of this discussion is why I'm shuddering.

Please tell me that you at least so much as hesitated an instant before you typed "embryo hacking", please?


My purpose was to draw the contrast between what we do as technologists and what kinds of people we are.

"Embryo hacking" did that quite nicely. It was jarring, and it was supposed to be jarring.


It's jarring because it's wrong. Hacking DNA is nothing like hacking code.

Genes are not code. Genes are visible elements in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands.

So by hacking embryos you're guaranteeing there will be unexpected results and outright defects.

Does anyone have the right to create embryos that are defective? I don't think they do, and I don't think the ethical issues are particularly fuzzy.


I agree with your last sentence, but:

Any particular bit of code is a visible element in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands.

The issue with hacking human embryos is that it's like working on a four billion year old legacy code base, written by toddlers smashing keys on a keyboard, in a language with no abstraction and where all variables are globally scoped. And the only testing you can do is to watch embryos die quickly or develop into people to die new and uniquely grisly deaths.


>unexpected results and outright defects.

This seems pretty close to the original meaning of "hacking," before "hacker" became a synonym for "Dilbert with VC funding"


Watch the series "Dollhouse" for a similar topic. Bonus: It's by Joss Whedon, so you should watch it anyway! ;-)


It is called DNS in German, with the S standing for "Säure" (acid).


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: