Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Spooky23's commentslogin

Because that is evil socialism

They really aren’t. They package benefits to try to hit different price points. Obamacare accelerated consolidation of providers and most regions have a cartel of 2-4 health networks.

Arrogance, and using war to avoid consequences for personal bad behavior of the leader.

It’s obviously not the only way. The more likely way is what is happening, a new medieval era with lords and serfs.

That’s one of the flawed arguments used against minimum wage. The answer is, no.

Yeah, morning eastern time Claude is brutal.

The US is building out the infrastructure for a police state. The people who control the consolidated tech platforms are either spearheading or collaborating with that process. Privacy as a concept isn't even in the cards.

You need to be prepared to avoid saying naughty things on the internet. Otherwise, perhaps someone will figure out that you great-great grandfather didn't sign in the right spot in 1897 and you're presence in the United States is void, retroactive to your birth. Off to El Salvador with you, enemy of the people.


Just want to clarify that "naughty" doesn't at all mean "bad" or "immoral". It means "Anything any current ot future regime will dislike"

Pretty safe to say that you pointing that out counts as naughty.

And so does my response to your comment.

But I do wonder if self-censure is really the best strategy.


>The US is building out the infrastructure for a police state.

Take the Utah Data Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center), combine it with the Disposition Matrix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix), informally known as a kill list for even US citizens, and it does seem like you're getting a Police State!


A lot of our current privacy and liberty woes were exacerbated by 9/11. Can you imagine a Church Committee in 2026? Me neither.

Three letter agencies have way too much power and they've shaped our culture+laws for the worse. Osama Bin Laden has done way more damage to American citizens' lives than he could've ever dreamed of.


By design.

Just like the KGB and Putin's minions, Bin Laden correctly saw fault lines and weaknesses in the US an exploited them. He did what he did with a long-range context in mind. The "three letter agencies" were neutered in the 90s as part of the peace dividend which is why he was successful. The Russians used "active measures" with intelligence in the US 2016 among other times and Bin Laden chose terrorist violence. The Russian misinformation strategy is tried and true and corporate actors now use it successfully as well.

The whole thing sucks. This Iran adventure lays the vulnerability of the US military machine pretty bare. More, escalated conflict is probably in the world's future for decades to come.


This wasn't by design. Obama had options. He campaigned against mass surveillance but flip-flopped once in office, installing the very surveillance levers he criticized. “No more secrecy,” he said. “That is a commitment that I make to you.”[1] If his only option was to install these surveillance levers, then I guess American democracy is just a lost cause.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-gov...


It feels to me Europe and the UK, in the western world, are further ahead on the legal road to surveillance than the US.

Someone pointed out something to me and it's really struck a chord with me.

In the USA, we hate the government collecting information on us, but shrug our shoulders when corporations do it.

In Europe, it's the exact opposite. They created GDPR to restrict how corporations collect and share data about you, but they shrug their shoulders at government doing it.

Obviously, this is incredibly reductive and over-simplified, but the general idea of it feels pretty true.


Sorry, this is just not true. Stasi was a government agency, and it was from this kind of thing that European privacy advocacy sprung up.

[flagged]


Sure, but I think the point of this thread was (or should be) what can be done in the US to resist this. There's a lot of things the US resists doing because voters who never traveled outside of it can be convinced that what it is as implemented elsewhere is somehow flawed or worse than the status quo.

You see this exact pattern with real health care, common sense gun laws, investment in mass transportation, probably more that I'm not thinking of.


> Sure, but I think the point of this thread was (or should be) what can be done in the US to resist this.

I read that as "we're not going to sit with the uncomfortable implication that the places being held up as policy exemplars are also the places criminalizing speech."


What differentiates correct politics from incorrect politics?

Who's we?

You’re confused because you are treating free-market and capitalism as the same thing.

Capitalism is about who owns the assets, free markets are about how they are transferred. They don’t require each other. State owned enterprises can participate in the free market, an example are municipal utility companies. Private enterprises can operate without a free market, an example would be Lockheed Martin, whose defense business is mostly cost plus contracts.

The US hobbled the free market with deregulation since the 1980s. We encourage monopolies with strange reactionary legal precedent, use tax and other policy to establish price floors on residential units and health procedures.

The behavior that these firms are able to carry on with in veterinary, dental, dermatology, hvac and plumbing is anti-competitive and predatory.


When I worked for the government, we had a requirement to get a certification for every model of device Dell had on our contract. This excluded consumer devices. They had >350 SKUs, with probably millions of configurations.

Apple a decade ago had like 10. Now probably 20-30 Mac configurations, and even those probably share alot of components.

Honestly, I don’t understand how Dell does it.


There's 8 Mac configurations for the Neo alone (4 colors by 2 storage options).

The Air has 24234 (maybe not precisely, I'm not going to go through all the permutations) = 192 configurations.

I'm not going to try to go through the MBP, Studio, or Pro, but realistically you're looking at a few thousand configurations, not 30.


I expressed that poorly. I mean the internal components.

The MacBook Neo has 2 configuations. The MacBook Pro has several, but the SOC funnels those configurations into a few paths and segments the market. You can't get a "base" MacBook Pro with 128GB of ram or a large SSD. Dell will sell whatever the components allow you to do, usually only limited by the hardware.


Their model works great.

It’s really about bypassing the existing power structure of the company. Competence of the work itself is a secondary objective. Most in-house initiatives can be slow rolled by management.

The fresh faced consultant with 2-3 steps to access the CEO neutralizes that. It seems grifty but is really exploiting bugs in corporate governance.

The current fad of firing the managers is a riff on this. Every jackass C-level is coming up with the novel idea of flattening.


This somehow implies that initiatives or strategies from consultants are somewhat successful. This is not the case in my experience.

No, you misunderstood. It is not about their output, it almost never is.

Most of the times, the business decision has already been made long before McK is hired. It’s all about legitimizing that decision and making it happen.

You can also wield them as a weapon against internal competitors or opponents. Look up how they were used to kill off Cariad for example.


They reflect the will of the principal who hired them. Success is in the eye of the beholder.

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

Search: