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

> Federal

> against the governor's will

that's kind of the idea


Can you elaborate?


A Federal intervention is generally not called for unless a State pointedly does not get with some Federal mandate or another. See desegregation in the South for another notable historic example.

Of the Little Rock 9 in Arkansas:

>When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive order 10730,[18] which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and 1,000 soldiers from the US Army and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students. The Arkansas National Guard would escort these nine black children inside the school as it became the students' daily routine that year.

Ideally though, this type of intervention should be exceedingly rare or reserved for the most egregious cases. Unfortunately, the present administration sees only the mechanism, and is motivated more by pettiness than any real commitment to Statecraft.


I haven't tried the others, but J meets all those requirements.


Yep. J has a small userbase, but it isn't fragmented into dialects like K or even APL, J uses ASCII characters instead of requiring a custom font/keyboard layout, J is FOSS, J has extensive learning materials, and J is reasonably batteries-included and suitable for making practical nontrivial programs.

I like K better than J aesthetically, but it's harder to recommend to beginners due to the fragmentation of the ecosystem.


I keep getting nudged in that direction. I'll check it out, thanks!


once expertise can drive benefits, expertise becomes a target for corruption

weirdly: if you want good scientists, don't listen to them!


for several years now my resume has labeled me a "Software Cultist"


man, if you want engineering guarantees, you're gonna have to pay for them, both in currency and realistic requirements.


I don't think shareholders really demand anything, most of the time. So much of the market is just passive 401k buckets.

This feels like a pathology of board/C-suite culture, something that they feel like they "have to" do, rather than actual angry letters from Joe Shareholder in Des Moines demanding more user data farming.


At least in the case of United, we did see shareholders write angry letters when they temporarily became slightly less aggressive denying customers coverage. If that's the level of care for matters of life and death, why wouldn't it generalize to surveillance?


A good faith person who was also informed would be aware that this is basically a criticism of Romney-era neocon policies, and that agenda is no longer the animating force of the GOP (and was soundly defeated despite the wishes of the great and the good of the party establishment). In the far-right circles I frequent, the sentiment is, basically, "Triple, quadruple, quintuple the national debt, and crash the economy, if that's what it takes to halt immigration and have a country again, rather than an economic zone."

It was not free-market sentiment that propelled Trump to the WH.


Great point. I don't know that I'd say people want a crash, but that they are ambivalent to a crash as long as legal and illegal immigration are stopped and rolled back.


>But the only way to get these people visas was to post the jobs publicly and hide them as much as possible. They did this by the hundreds, and it wasn't really a cost saving measure - if you are trying to get anybody in particular from Microsoft or Amazon and they are already here on a Visa, you have to go through the process all over again to sponsor them.

The spirit of the law is that this should not be your intent---that your intent should be to fill the job requirements, not to hire a particular person.


> that the shared playerbase is half the fun,

unironically I think this is the next frontier. If "other players" constitute part of the experience, how do you create/attract/curate a "quality" playerbase?


Totally agree, what I observed with the shift to matchmaking was the removal of communities and shared sportsmanship (and moderation). Replaced by matchmaking, game providers are constantly chasing the technological challenge of removing bad actors from the pool. But we are already very good at that as a species, if they gave us control of making communities within online services again we'd solve that problem for them right away.

You see it with things like Counter-strike and private servers. Sim racing and leagues/discord servers etc.


It's kind of amusing how allergic permadeath MMOs are to quality player bases.


Create karma system that follows you from game to game, tied to government ID, and if you’re not a good gamer, people just won’t play with you and you’re shunned.


No, this is insane. I will make a thousand people uncomfortable on group dates if that's what it takes to have an actual country.

Are people hurt? Are things unfair? Would it be kinder and more humane if we could see each others' souls, and trust prevailed? Absolutely.

But we can not. And there is an asymmetry to civilization---it is easier to destroy than to build. This makes division and exclusion (other names: protection, safeguarding, immune system, comment moderation, firewalls, safe sex) practical and essential. Do you want your startup's bank account "united and standing together" with some other startup's bank account? Division allows good things to remain good.

None of this is to say all gatekeepers are honest, all standards are fair, or that injustice doesn't exist. Everything is a work in progress. But if the worst you have to complain about is an inconsequential misunderstanding on a group date, count yourself lucky.


The more I think about it the more incoherent it seems. We don’t know what the person’s immigration status is, we don’t know if they have a passport, but if they did the bouncer/bartender only cares about your birth date, not your visa. Is the author asking for the abolition of all border controls? That’s something different from patriotism.

Before 1920 there were no passports or standardization of border controls but there were also no international human rights. If your state wanted to do you in they could just do it and not face any consequences. “Genocide”, “War Crimes”, and “Crimes Against Humanity” were all introduced in the next 30 years. Any formalization of your rights requires that the state “see like a state” and document your existence. In a lot of places, like China, there are restrictions on internal migration because a rapidly industrializing country faces challenging problems in development.

Today there was a great podcast episode about the origin of human rights as we know it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...


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

Search: