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

The article continues to argue the point:

> Sanchez was charged following a search that ICE proclaimed on social media turned up “literal insurrectionist propaganda” he had allegedly transported from his home to an apartment, noting that “insurrectionary anarchism is regarded as the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat.” The tweet also said that Sanchez is a green card holder granted legal status through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

> The indictment claims Sanchez was transporting those materials to conceal them because they incriminated his wife. But how can possession of literature incriminate anyone, let alone someone who isn’t even accused of anything but being present when someone else allegedly fired a gun? Zines aren’t contraband; it’s not illegal to be an anarchist or read about anarchism. I don’t know why Sanchez allegedly moved the box of documents, but if it was because he (apparently correctly) feared prosecutors would try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s.


This is some serious mental gymnastics. Possessing "legal" goods can absolutely be circumstantially incriminating. Carrying around a bat can be circumstantial evidence of a crime. Carrying lockpicks (in CA at least) is legal, but carrying them around a neighborhood where you don't live at 2am is going to get you brought to the police station.


I feel like you are ignoring the bit where this is presented as "the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat."

Also "someone who isn’t even accused of anything"


I understand how one might use a bat to hurt someone or break something. I understand how one might use lockpicks to steal something. I don't understand how one might use a magazine or pamphlet to shoot a police officer.


The title is “Did a US Chess Champion Cheat?” and the text of the article uses statistical analysis to show that the person most likely did not cheat. What would you consider to be misleading between the title and the article?


When I opened the article I thought it was going to be about someone cheating at the US Chess Championship.


"Statistical analysis shows US Chess Champion most likely did not cheat, despite recent claims" would be nice


The headline also complies with Betteridge's Law of Headlines. It's entirely legal.



Headlines following Betteridge's law were the original clickbait, and this definitely fits.


> Far away galaxies appear both older and redder the further away they are, so red is the past.

> If the galaxies are turning red, you are in the future.

Aren’t these statements saying the same thing?


You seem to be missing the point entirely.

1. The bill shown for July 2024 was for about $100, which includes $65 of supply charges.

2. The bill for July 2025 was for about $129, with supply charges of $84.

3. Despite actual usage being lower for July 2025, the total cost increased by 29%.

The point being raised is that energy costs are higher for individuals because the cost of building infrastructure to support data centers is being subsidized by individuals. Even if her bill was for $65, it is inconsequential to the main point. I don’t understand why people make comments like yours other than to muddy the waters and obfuscate the issue. Or truly failing to understand what is being communicated due to some bias or ideology. A sad microcosm of what passes for discourse in our time.


> He added, however, that it is important to remember the limitations of such studies: "We used point/money to represent the real-life costs associated with actions like campaigning or going on a protest march. Experiments like these are only meant to simulate aspects of the real world, not perfectly represent its complexity."

> Behavior may be different if participants had earned their points rather than simply received them, or both Proposers and Responder shared a common identity or wider goal.

> "Still," Dr. Gordon continues, "it is a reminder that we should be mindful of attempts to limit the ability to hold power to account. For example, through anti-protest, anti-strike, and voter suppression laws. In an era marked by growing global inequality, this study offers critical insights into the psychology of power, and the mechanisms that can promote more equitable societies."


It was a metaphor. Are you taking it personally because the shoe fits?


Conservatives have been trying to redefine equity as equality out of outcomes for some time now. It is disingenuous at best.


You are objectively incorrect almost across the board but especially about what “MLK was looking for.” See: https://www.diverseeducation.com/opinion/article/15661878/ho...

> I'm presently in the most oppressed group -- I'm a white heterosexual male.

The group you are in is the perpetually seeking victimhood group.

> All the DEI training materials claim that I'm "inherently racist", which is a ploy to punish me unjustly.

Right, the problem is not the actual racism rather it’s pointing out things that could be racist and making racists feel bad about being racist.


> Right, the problem is not the actual racism rather it’s pointing out things that could be racist and making racists feel bad about being racist.

Is it racist to be a white male? If not he is not inherently racist. And if you do think white males are inherently racist then you are a racist.


You say that like it’s a worse option.


LOD = level of detail


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

Search: