Political hate? But this article seems to be coming from the perspective of someone who loves their country and doesn't want it to be taken over by America-hating fascists?
Well you see before Covid, Aunt Karen could waltz into the Olive Garden for "wine night" whenever she wanted, and could even threaten to leave a bad review and get half the bill comped (she didn't need the money but it was a nice power trip). During Covid, she had to make a reservation because half the tables were lOcKeD dOwN and when the hostess had the gall to tell her that she needed to wear something to cover her schnauze, the manager took the hostess's side. So you see in many ways it was much more oppressive than being made to tan outside all day at some sunny vacation resort.
What is with this tendency to downplay the current drastic escalations? It feels like a kind of hipster denialism - "I was complaining about the US being a police state before it was cool" but also if it's this is "nothing new" then there's nothing to really earnest worry about, right?
How hard is it to acknowledge that we have been gradually losing our rights AND that the Trumpist bonfire is a marked departure into something much more rapid?
Surely you can see the difference between a society where occasional flagrant abuses happen but the majority can still speak out about them, versus a society where abuses are routine and anybody who speaks out becomes a target at scale?
Well, I think the point it is even beyond "how many grains of sand is a pile," which seems like a legitimate point to me. If we don't understand how we got here, it's really hard to figure out hat to do, so pretending as if someone flipped a switch in January of 2025 is not helpful.
I say this as a person who has been pepper sprayed by DHS while resisting ICE:
the conditions to led to the current bonfire have a lot to do with centrist folks piling up wood as if could never be lit.
If you ignore how we got here you will be unable to understand where really are.
> If you ignore how we got here you will be unable to understand where really are.
Exactly this is core issue with a lot of people here on HN. The argument goes “oh shit, look what the current 2025 looks like, OMG so bad, we were this amazing bastion of freedom before this and now this administration is doing _____” so shortsighted and un-educated
I'd say someone did flip a switch in 2025 - the rejection of the standard norms of good faith execution of all three branches of government. The government has always been authoritarian. But it had been predominately bureaucratic authoritarianism, while now it's driven by autocratic authoritarianism.
I say this as a libertarian who's right there with you on the "piling up wood".
There are many angles from which to analyze how we got here. Yes, the "centrists" supporting lazy authoritarian laws and agencies because they couldn't bother thinking one step ahead to how they'd be abused. The sprawling surveillance industry pointed out by a sibling comment. Narrower issues of destruction of the fairness doctrine and campaign finance limits. Even many of the refrains of the Trumpists point to problems that were slowly allowed to fester until they reached a breaking point (although as usual for Republicans, the answer they've been stage-managed into is completely self-defeating).
For all of these things it's understandable to want to say "I told you so" - for catharsis, and trying to establish some authority of having a larger context of what direction we need to head in.
But none of that justifies downplaying the situation we're currently staring down, which is what I take issue with.
(also re being pepper sprayed: what's left of your country thanks you for your service)
"But none of that justifies downplaying the situation we're currently staring down, which is what I take issue with."
Maybe we read things differently- I don't see folks who say "this is nothing new, the US has always been ethically questionable" as "downplaying" anything.
As I've written here before, there is a difference between "hey, welcome to the party" (radicalization) and "hey shut up, this is a thing we've always done" (normalization).
I take issue with (and find very frustrating) the idea that somehow things have just now reached a breaking point.
I find that incorrect-to-me idea worrisome on two levels.
First of all, if Clinton or Harris had been elected we'd still be walking down this same road but liberals would be at brunch and telling us that nothing is wrong. But Ferguson and Standing Rock both happened while Obama was in office. And we don't need to run another experiment to see how it would have run under Harris, as she explicitly was moving to the right from Biden.
The flip side of your suspicion that folks in my position are just perversely enjoying some kind of schadenfreude might be that folks who believe this situation to be new and unique is to note that while this violent empire has been violent-empire-ing for far longer than any of us have been alive, the violence hasn't been overtly staged within the spectacle confronting the "middle class" folks until very recently.
The distinction between "bureaucratic authoritarianism" and "autocratic authoritarianism" only matters if you show up the bureaucracy in a legible way, and the fact that this is a distinction you draw places you in a very specific relationship to the power which "it's always been violent" seeks to critique.
Or to say the same thing in a different way, for the same reasons you might point to some perverse enjoyment by hipsters, you might look at your own psyche here:
to admit that the US has always been violent is to admit that you didn't care because it wasn't happening to people about whom you care.
However, that possible reading of your position is -wholly immaterial- to the folks who are pointing out "it's been bad for a long time".
The catharsis you seem to be projecting isn't really there for the people who could see there was a problem before it became visible even to middle class liberals. So an aside, nobody cares that folks ignored the problem until we are where we are, so feel your feelings about your blindness and then get to work, and stop projecting.
Do, however, consider that the lines of thought which lead people to directly and painfully confront power in a physical way can only come from the idea that the power being confronted is not and has not been legitimate.
I only dive into the phrenology of your position because it seems funny to me, but I do think that position is an active and harmful impediment to actually doing anything- if we could just vote our way home, why bother walking?
That is, if it really was okay a while ago, why not just do the blue version of making America great again?
And that leads to a second level at why I find the idea that "things have just gotten worse this year" to be almost dangerous:
the situation can and likely will get more authoritarian.
The reality to me is that these systems have been violent in the past- I live on land next to the Southern Ute folks' reservation, and I have had Navajo roommates, and I can see a former residential school every time I drive to town.
There is no amount of being white or tall or "well-educated" that would save me if the ancestors of the folks who built those things decide I am no longer a "citizen" because "reasons" and burn my corpse so it ascends to some gulag in the sky.
But if these systems haven't been incredibly harmful, abandoning them seems foolish and dumb. Any action to undermine their authority takes on the same character of a "rejection of the standard norms of good faith execution of [the] government".
I wholly understand why anarchists and communists seem stupid and dangerous to the folks who have historically been able to ignore the harms of these systems.
For that reason, though, folks are going to have to give up some of their ideological attachments to those systems if they are going to work against them.
So from my position, actively being unwilling to admit the past harms cause by those systems is a very easy way to prevent oneself from coming to a position where you actually have to do anything material.
Sorry for writing a novel (as an aside I dislike AI because writing things like this is how I think through things and I think the adoption of AI writing says a lot about the willingness of folks to think). But as a person incredibly worried about the very real shift in character of the current political spectacle, I think that "it's new and improved" is a harmful idea that you should reconsider.
DEA? ATF? The fact that the "Patriot" Act was basically written and ready long before it was put up for a vote?
But of course now I'm on the other side of the argument. The point is that even though it's a long arc, this doesn't invalidate the current urgency. "Slow at first, then all at once"
If you set your metric at targeting and marginalizing racial groups, you undermine your point even harder re "Patriot" Act being the start.
But also, am I supposed to come away with the conclusion that this is all in line with business as usual and there is nothing to worry about as long as I am white?
You are conflating America being racist as hell with the establishment of the surveillance state post-9/11, which was largely focused on Arabs.
America has been a racist cesspool for hundreds of years, but since 2001 it has also become a highly advanced surveillance state that has militarized its own police force.
You may not like it, but this has been developing for 25 years and has just now started to (barely) affect white people.
You've skipped over my two counterexamples of the DEA and the ATF, and their supporting laws criminalizing substances and tools. Those have been around much longer than merely 2001, and had already created some pretty totalitarian spectacles of government attacking the People.
Also driving this conversation towards race reeks of race-to-the-bottom "privilege" politics. Which is why I facetiously asked if your intention is to encourage white people to become less concerned.
Cause what you are doing is sensationalism and exaggeration. “Abuses are routine” - back this up with actual numbers vs. making a crazy blanket statement like that cause you saw 13 clickbait articles in December.
You are 100% right, we have been (not so) gradually losing our rights and Trump et al isn’t really lighting any bonfires, the country has been burning for decades… it is just that the current fires are broadcasted to a wider audience with minute-by-minute play-by-play. and while most people are falling for this shit again (see 2016-2020) the current admin is lining their pockets (which is the one and only goal they have…)
Flying in a plane you built yourself is likely safer than flying in the same model of plane built by a company that assembled it for you using lowest-bid labor while making you sign a twenty page lawyer barf disclaiming liability.
Why do you think a random person, who is VERY passionate about something, as to invest all the free hours in life to do something, is less skilled that one who just does it because is needed to survive?
Sorry. I would be much more inclined to have something made by somebody passionate about it, as done by some guy that received hopefully some kind of instruction on how to do things and was then left alone.
In this context (GA) we are not comparing Airbus/Boeing with a garage build. We are comparing some small company making 2 seaters with your hangar and maybe 10 certified aircraft mechanics that will help you a lot on the process.
And why do you think pathos arguments are logical? Granted, they didn't cite them, but assuming it is true, empirical studies showing the accident rates are the logical point from which to draw conclusions. What you would like, how you and others feel about it, and what you would expect are meaningless.
You're also equivocating. They made it extremely clear they are referring to hobbyist and other such groups with vague or unknown qualifications; whereas, you go in and make stipulated claims about small businesses with certified mechanics, etc. These two are clearly not the same category, making your argument non-responsive. It's also contradictory in terms of discussed liabilities and such, as the small company, and its mechanics, that whoever worked with, would have liability as well, as opposed to the "random git repo".
See my other follow up comment ("same model"). Medical device software development feels much closer to homegrown (or worse) than aeronautical engineering.
You write that as if you have ample experience with codebases of medical devices and I'm going to take a stab at this and say that you don't. Prove me wrong.
You can believe it and simultaneously function in society.
We aren't all building our own planes because it's worse, but because it's time consuming. I don't have 20,000 hours to burn learning about how planes work to make my own.
If we magically beamed the knowledge straight into people's heads and also had a matter fabricator, I'd imagine yes - everyone would build their own plane. And it might be safer, I don't know.
Point is, the ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can believe both and still resolve it internally and with the world
Not the original poster, but that was snark and not meant literally.
Also, building your own plane is absolutely worse, even if you do have expert-level knowledge. That's true for any complex design. Aircraft design, material sourcing, fabrication, assembly and quality control are all very different skill sets, but the real kicker is experience.
The reason why commercial aircraft are so safe is a lot of work goes into investigating and understanding the root causes of accidents, and even more work goes into implementing design fixes and crew training.
The problem is that the system incentivizes incompetence. The mechanics who are paid a skilled wage, take their time, and double check to make sure they are not missing anything show up as big red problems on the beancounters' spreadsheets and get optimized away.
The system can make up for this in other ways like repeatability of processes, redundancy, etc. Which is why commercial aviation is safer than general aviation, and also why I specifically worded my comment as being about the same model of plane - ie if instead of building your own experimental-class kit plane, you hired it out to a liability-limiting company hiring minimum-wage workers to follow the directions. I'm guessing such a thing is illegal per FAA regs, but that kind of proves my point.
For another example, have you experienced the medical system lately? Doctors are generally smart people, but that intelligence is squandered by having their attention smashed into 10 minute chunks, with the entire rest of the system revolving around blame passing - the end result is a lot of smart and well-meaning people ending up grossly incompetent through emergent effects. I would much rather be able to go to a doctor and trust whatever answers they gave me rather than having to do my own independent research and advocacy to drive the process. But that is not how the system we have works.
I don’t even disagree with you about the system incentives. I hate capitalism just as much as you!
But I still trust the institutions around me to keep me safe. Obviously that depends on where you live, I wouldn’t feel the same way if I still lived in Brazil.
Last time I went to a doctor was about 3 years ago. They diagnosed me in 5 minutes, and took another 10 to treat me and write me a prescription. It was great, I loved it.
Sounds like you have this trust issue with lots of different areas of your life, it might be worth reexamining your own perspective. Or maybe you just have to move to somewhere that you do trust.
I'm glad for you that you've had good experiences so far! "Diagnosed me in 5 minutes" doesn't sound like anywhere near a complex medical issue though.
I certainly keep trying to obtain good results from the system, ie extend trust, but situations routinely run aground. Can you really say it's a "trust issue" when the problem is that I dig into details of situations and repeatedly discover how so-called professionals abjectly drop key issues on the floor?
Latest example: I need a new dishwasher. I should be able to read some reviews, spend $1k, and get the problem solved, right? Guess again - first delivery, a dent (crease) in the tub from the thing being slammed so hard that its plastic frame deformed and pushed up into the metal tub. Second delivery - loud noise from wash motor. I try to engage with warranty service figuring I'd be fine with them swapping the whole pump assembly. Nope, the guy that comes can't even be assed to do his job either! "Oh that's normal so there is nothing to fix, this is a good model, you should keep it". Third try, wash motor sounds a little better but still has a problem. The third set of delivery guys didn't even take away unit #2 for the exchange (even though I even pushed back when they said someone else was going to come later). I had wanted to simply pay money to solve the problem, but instead I'm left with two noisy dishwashers and a big ole project in my court. (do I keep pushing this exchange button? do I just order a new pump assembly and fix it myself, considering the bonus dishwasher compensation for that? do I say fuck it to the whole brand and rethink the purchase decision?)
Sure, I could drop my standards here, check out, and stop caring about the details. The dented tub probably wouldn't leak a decade down the line, the loud motor isn't really that big of a deal if I only run it overnight, and if the motor needs replacing in a few years it's only a $200 repair. But should not giving in to this "best effort" service (after paying $1k) really be considered a "me" problem? It seems more like an economy problem, with me only being exceptional for noticing, having some expertise on how these things should function, and having the willingness to push back.
(although I am thankful that the thing in the front of my mind that I'm frustrated with is an appliance rather than dealing with the medical system again)
My comment rests on the fact that the types of planes you can build yourself are completely different models than the fully assembled models from the likes of Boeing etc. I do agree that a kit 737, if such a thing existed, would be less safe than one off the line.
I think the Beechcraft Bonanza deserves special mention here. I'm sure all the people that worked on it were experts too!
The big problem with this analogy is that it conflates three very important things:
- GA is more dangerous, period. Doesn't matter whether you build the plane yourself or if you bought it ready made (hopefully new, hopefully very well maintained if second hand)
- GA craft tend to have less experienced pilots than airliners, but even airliner pilots tend to do worse as GA pilots than when they're at work. The reason for that is simple: the processes are what keeps commercial aviation (mostly) safe.
- GA craft tend to kill the pilots, because they are more often than not the only person on the plane.
- GA craft have malfunctions like larger aircraft, there is nothing special about them in that sense. But there is something that they don't have that larger aircraft do have: redundancy. In electronics systems, in the design of the mechanical bits, and finally in the people.
- GA craft that are designed and built by their operators are experimental class for a reason: they are untested and so more likely to fail than the ones that are certified. The design processes for commercial aircraft are nothing compared to the design processes employed by what we'll call hobbyists to distinguish them.
- And finally, even though it is a fun analogy I only meant it from a skin-in-the-game point of view, a GA hobbyist is still going to do his level best to make sure that he's not going to get killed. Boeing executives only care about the bottom line, safety is a distant second. And based on my experience with the difference between the guts of various bits and pieces of avionics and the software that they run on compared to my experience looking at medical devices, their guts and the software that they run on I would be more than happy to bet that the loop hackers know as much more more about the failure modes of these devices as the manufacturers do.
Cleanroom manufacturing under sterile conditions is the main differentiator here, and that just applies to the hardware, and it is an art that the medical industry understands very well. Electronics is already at a lower level of competence and their software knowledge tends to be terrible, not to mention the QA processes on said software.
Programmers working for corporations don't necessarily suddenly grow an extra quality brain when they do their work.
Now look at something like the Bede BD-5 and see how many of it's amatuer builders IT killed. Death rate on the first flight alone was something like 10%.
PS: AIrcraft aren't assembled in cleanrooms.
Frankly, you don't have a damn clue on and are getting basically everything wrong in the process
Seriously. It's like there is zero political will to meaningfully regulate companies, so politicians think that performative labeling is some kind of half way compromise. I wouldn't be surprised if this NY law is similarly broken to the CA one where the government doesn't even take a stand as to what is considered harmful, just leaving it up to the corpos to choose - for which they will just maximally plaster the label on everything because "fuck you".
Furthermore, the issues given for nixpkgs are actually demonstrating the success of using git as the database! Those 20k forks are all people maintaining their own version of nixpkgs on Github, right? Each their own independent tree that users can just go ahead and modify for their own whims and purposes, without having to overcome the activation energy of creating their own package repository.
If 83GB (4MB/fork) is "too big" then responsibility for that rests solely on the elective centralization encouraged by Github. I suspect if you could go and total up the cumulative storage used by the nixpkgs source tree distributed on computers spread throughout the world, that is many orders of magnitude larger.
Agreed, nix really makes it easy to go from solving the problem for yourself to solving it for everybody. Not much else is easy, but when it comes to building an open source community, that criterion is a pretty powerful one.
Many cattle have names and given that it takes a bunch of cloud instances to do what a small menagerie of self-hosted servers can do, I'd say a better analogy is an infestation of rats.
"The loss" is already performing an abstraction to create something generic that can/must be assigned. The person who died is dead regardless of the creation of that assignable loss.
If there are too many instances of people dying in such situations, then the fundamental way to solve that is to prevent such situations from existing. A specter of civil financial liability is but one way of trying to do this, and having judges create common law theories is but one way of assigning that liability. Relying on those methods to the exclusion of others is not a neutral policy choice.
The way I see it, if they don't want to be called fascists then they need to find a new label that accurately describes their desired goals. As long as they keep hiding behind this preposterous cloak of "conservative" to cover for an extremely radical agenda, I will use the label "fascist" as it seems to be the most-fitting existing term.
Alternatively they can explain how their agenda differs from fascism, rather than most arguments being of the form that <fascist dynamic> is required due to <some perceived emergency>.
reply