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

Nest/Google also hid microphones in products so ...

Eventually someone is 'root'

Up until recently (and my intervention) my work had multiple aws accounts tied to individual people, where they had inherited a personal account into the billing org.

There are also, in business use, some domains where an executive personally owns the registration but has delegated DNS into the company. There is no written agreement.

A former employer completely lost access to a couple of social media accounts (twitter/$company, etc) after laying off enough people.


hoisted by its own petard!

2024 NIH guidance: https://web.archive.org/web/20240409042454/https://www.nih.g...

These word changes were real things that happened by government policy.


> Both pregnant women and pregnant people are acceptable phrases.

Literally the first sentence in the guidelines that talk about birthing person.

The entire paragraph says "it's fine if you want to" and isn't prescriptive.

This is a fake controversy. You are literally just mad that some people recognize and want to be accommodating to trans people.


I really can't stress enough just how offensive "chestfeeding" and similar turns of phrase are to massive numbers of women. It is a very big deal.

when did this retcon get invented?


I'm not sure if you're kidding or what but the mothers in that paper had 46 (the normal number) of XX chromosomes, a female with a mosaic-type defect containing some Y - successfully giving birth further proves these were female humans.


If you want your mind-blown, read up on feto-maternal microchimerism:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8762399/

tl;dr: All boy moms will have some proportion of XY cells lodged in their bodies until they die. And this can result in them showing up as genetically male on a DNA test, simply because they once gave birth to a boy. When you get down to a cellular or molecular level, notions of "sex" or even "individuality" are far more blurry than our mental models admit. Sorta like recent findings that by cell count, humans are only about 43% human, and the rest is the bacteria making up our microbiome, and that our microbiome can have significant impact on our behavior.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270


yeah I knew that already - I have a son and it was mentioned as a fun fact along the way


please expand


Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich, the epitome of "both sides are the same." John Kerry would not have invaded Iraq on false pretenses. He wouldn't have perma-fucked the budget with his massive tax cuts for the rich. The GWB administration was a disaster and these guys pretended they were equivalent.

ManBearPig lambasted the very idea of climate change as laughable, and anyone who cared about it was a pussy liberal loser. They have recently walked this back, but the damage is done.

Overall they contributed to the perception that sincerity and earnestness are lame and the only way to appear cool and enlightened is to be a cynic.


John Kerry seemed like a nice guy and I found (and continue to find) the republican attacks on his (and other) military service to be very very distasteful.

Senator Kerry voted for the iraq war.

Al Gore was the guy to get elected and not invade Iraq. Kerry was the following election. The south park episode about that election was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapper_Keeper_(South_Park) but it came out after and was boring.

---

Your example is an episode where they lampoon both candidates.


> Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich, the epitome of "both sides are the same."

idk I feel like an election boiling down to “Which Bonesman would you like?” is a valid thing to question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones#Notable_member...

> In the 2004 presidential election, both the Democratic and Republican nominees were members of Skull and Bones. When asked what it meant that both he and George W. Bush were Bonesmen, former presidential candidate John Kerry said, "Not much, because it's a secret."[46][47]


Is their membership in this silly club the defining characteristic of either man? What does this have to do with their presidential platforms?


How could I know? He literally said it's a secret.


I don’t think you understood the question.


south park is a product of the 1990's! its origins lean heavily on the still-true left/democratic party's pro-censorship leanings

just because the recent right/republicans were able to more effectively lean into the meme-heavy southpark-type (crude, male-targeted) humor as marketing doesn't really track with your last assertion (for me)


I feel it worth pointing out an important distinction between censorship coming from "the left" vs. that coming from "the right".

On the left, when someone uses a racial or sexist epithet, for example, the reaction is to exert social pressure against that individual. Social media escalates that to a giant dogpile, which, in some cases, results in some extreme cases where the individual loses their job in addition to becoming a social pariah.

However, all of this is merely an exercise in free speech and free association. The person in question suffers no legal consequences for their speech. Instead, it is a large number of onlookers who decide they disagree with the individual and choose to counter him/her with their own speech and/or dissolve any association they have with him/her.

I won't say I condone how little it takes for the crowd to react sometimes or the extent to which they do, but everything is well within First Amendment rights of free speech and association.

In contrast, when something the right doesn't like is discovered, they take legal action. Books are removed from public and school libraries. Laws are written to target anyone who is guilty of the offensive speech (e.g., Florida's Don't Say Gay law). More recently, it's been popular to write these laws such that the offending individuals are opened to civil suits by third parties rather than suffer jail time, as a loophole trying to avoid the Supreme Court striking them down as blatant First Amendment violations.


> On the left, when someone uses a racial or sexist epithet, for example, the reaction is to exert social pressure against that individual. Social media escalates that to a giant dogpile

Not sure it’s correct to characterize that as a reaction of only the “left” - case in point, the reactions to Charlie Kirk’s death.


The Biden administration created a coordinated censorship apparatus with the major social networks.

They handed a guy a seven month jail sentence for posting a joke that Hillary voters could text in their votes.


The US-Left is pro-censorship? My recent memory of headlines was the US-Right attempting to ban books. What am I missing?


Tipper Gore targeted music and Hilary Clinton targeted video games (remember - 1990s)



Warrant’s “Ode to Tipper Gore” is something of a classic


If Tipper Gore weren't such a prude, there might have been enough votes to overcome that butterfly ballot issue.


The perception is that the left is in favor of censoring slurs and hate symbols. As a reaction, Trump/MAGA has brought back the R-word for instance.

Saying the Left are "pro-censorship" is not factually incorrect but definitely has a different connotation.


> the R-word

??


The r-word is "retard".


Thanks.

Though surely to say a system or process is 'retarded' means something is holding it back?

To equate this to a derogatory term for a learning disability (worthy of self-censorship!) is, frankly, bizarre and rather smacks of virtue signalling.


broadly speaking, it _is_ factually incorrect to say that. Censorship is the government controlling what information the public can access. No one on "the left" is trying to pass a law saying that people should get jail time for using the R-word.

Political correctness, woke/cancel culture, whatever you want to call it, is not censorship. And it's not splitting hairs to say this; words have meaning and though 'censorship' is particularly abused, it is still quite different from me looking down on someone who uses the R slur on X (as I do daily)


> Censorship is the government controlling what information the public can access

Wikipedia and the ACLU both use a more expansive definition, where your definition is only 1 type of censorship. The "Left" uses empathy to convince people to self-censor and less often uses "Cancel Culture" to pressure companies into private censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship


What's wrong with empathy?


Broken people consider it a weakness.


There are more subtle forms of censorship, continuously employed by the government to prop up or push down various things. Covid had many such examples of pressure tactics from the government come to light but I'm sure it happens constantly.

For a specific recent example democrat-leaning states had much stricter and longer-lasting covid lockdowns - preventing free association is a form of censorship.


Political correctness, woke/cancel culture, whatever you want to call it, is not censorship

Cancel culture is literally censorship. Deplatforming is censorship. Debanked is censorship.

I don't know what the R word is but there is a group of people you can't even look down at because they have been deplatformed and cancelled.

The left has passed laws and people do get jail time for social media posts in the UK.


The Christian right was trying to ban books in the 70s/80s. Fought heavy metal music in the 80s. Then you have 911 censorship. But after 2008 the left brought woke to power which saw banning people from twitter, social media, right speech. Then we reached covid which saw banning of facts. Deplatforming / banning / doxing became the norm until the return of Trump who then moved the needle and started pro Jewish censorship which has pushed the needle for the anti Jewish censorship crew which is taking over.


Harry Potter is the funniest example because it started out being a target of the evangelical "right" and has become a target of the culture-war "left"!


Indeed.

I remember taking a California statewide essay exam in middle school whose prompt was specifically to argue for or against banning Harry Potter from the school library. I wrote a stridently anti-censorship piece extolling the virtues of literary freedom and calling out the censorious right for attempting to use schools not to educate, but to transmit catechism.

The essays were graded by (obviously heavily left-leaning) teachers from all over the state, with two teachers independently assigning a score and if their scores differed by more than one grade, another teacher would be tiebreaker.

I got the top score from both teachers--one of only a handful in the (large) school district. I even got an award from the local newspaper.

Now I see the same demographic take the polar opposite view and it's disappointing to say the least. Especially after the "anti" racism struggle session era, it seems to me that their real issue with the book bans wasn't the censorship; they just wanted to transmit the "right" catechism.


How did the institutions dominated by the left react to dissent when it came to COVID 19 policy? Like the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. Were they open with speculation about the virus, vaccine policy or the lockdowns? Or did they censor Disinformation and Misinformation on Campus, on social media,and at the work place?


Yeah you just need to remember to login to your totally-not-corrupt ISP's definitely-easy-to-use firewall manager app and setup your firewall rules to prevent hostile governments from using your microwave as a passive listening device, which they sell back to your own government for probable cause, to arrest you for cooking the wrong brand of popcorn.


Look around in any parking lot or stop light. Check out some real estate listings near you. Notice the number of deliveries going out at your local restaurants.


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

Search: