Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more MagicWishMonkey's comments login

Yep, the FBI is unlikely to nail you to the wall for doing something inadvertantly (unless it was really really bad).

A friend of mine is a field agent who spent years prosecuting financial crimes, and a lot of her time was spent knocking on doors and telling people to stop doing stupid stuff. Like one lady in particular was elderly and kept getting taken advantage of by money launderers (people putting cash in her account and telling her to deposit it somewhere else). My friend had to visit her on multiple occasions to explain that she needed to stop doing that.


"This is really blatant money laundering? How are you planning on beating the FBI?"

"Seriously? Oh, I'm old and confused and this nice young gentlemen on the telephone called me and said he accidentally put a bunch of money into my account that was supposed to go to his mother. Such a nice boy. Just keep up your side of the deal. If my cut isn't in the Cayman account within the week, then I can guarantee that you won't be worrying about the FBI."

EDIT: Just to be clear. I'm hoping that we don't unknowingly live in a universe where all elderly people are secret underworld mob bosses. However, I'm honestly not sure how you would tell the difference between a sufficiently proficient elderly mob boss and someone who's just old and hasn't kept up with changing trends.


haha, that scenario definitely crossed my mind when I heard about it, but she's not an idiot (my friend) - I assume they had other reasons to think the lady wasn't all there, but I didn't ask.

Prior to working in financial crimes she spent a lot of time dealing with catching drug dealers/smugglers/cartels, which I think is where most agents go to cut their teeth, so she's heard pretty much every ridiculous excuse/justification you can imagine.


Options have always been a crapshoot with the odds heavily stacked against you.


Who is taxing the rich? We gave the rich a huge tax break 4 years ago...

This article smells like gaslighting, to me.


Read the article. This is a global thing, not US-specific.

    Los Angeles is planning to put a vacant homes tax on the ballot for 2022, in the face of a mounting homelessness crisis. Hong Kong officials are considering taxing condo developers to deter them from hoarding new units. Ireland is exploring its options. Barcelona has gone as far as threatening to seize landlords’ empty apartments — paying half of market value — and convert the units into affordable rentals. Paris tripled its tax on second homes in 2017.


But only one of those examples is something that’s actually been done. The others are future plans or threats or just ideas.


And also, in that example, it actually seems to have worked, just not as much as they hoped, so obviously total failure, right?


the parent comment: "We gave the rich a huge tax break 4 years ago"

... which is not a global occurrence. But hey, this is HN, wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good narrative


The author doesn't spell it out but he mentions that the idiot story about Hunter Biden's laptop was totally real and not Russia using Giuliani like a stooge and he implies that if you don't think covid was leaked from a lab you're an idiot.

So yea, I don't doubt that this guy thinks facebook is being mean by not letting him spread conspiracy bullshit on their platform.


> was totally real

I missed that part, any chance you could quote the text where he says this?


> Immerse yourself in news of Russian plots to counterfeit presidential children’s laptops, viruses spawned in Wuhan market stalls, vast secret legions of domestic terrorists flashing one another the OK sign in shadowy parking lots behind Bass Pro Shops experiencing “temporary” inflation, and patriotic tech conglomerates purging the commons of untruths.

Pretty standard alt-right nutjob. Substack is swarming with them.


There is no "was totally real" in there.

That people so often stretch the truth in these matters (while complaining about people who are clearly writing provocatively, and thus have no shortage of genuine weak points) is interesting.


Here's the quote with a tiny bit more context:

> Go read more bullshit. Immerse yourself in news of Russian plots [...]

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The original comment did muddy the waters a bit by taking the inverse of that statement, but the author isn't being ambiguous on their beliefs in that regard.


> Here's the quote with a tiny bit more context:

How about a lot more context:

> One option, more popular each day, is to retreat to the anti-bullshit universe of alternative media sources. These are the podcasts, videos, Twitter threads, newsletters, and Facebook pages that regularly vanish from circulation for violating “community standards” and other ineffable codes of conduct, oft-times after failing “fact-checks” by the friendly people at Good Thoughtkeeping. Some of these rebel outfits are engrossing, some dull and churchy, many quite bizarre, and some, despite small staffs and tiny budgets, remarkably good and getting better. Some are Substack pages owned by writers who severed ties with established publications, drawing charges of being Russian agents, crypto-anarchists, or free-speech “absolutists.” I won’t bother to give a list. Readers who hunt and choose among such sources have their own lists, which they fiercely curate, loudly pushing their favorites on the world while accusing those they disagree with of being “controlled opposition” and running cons. It resembles the old punk-rock scene, but after it was discovered, not early on. Some of the upstart outlets earn serious money, garnering higher ratings and more page-views than the regime-approved brands Apple features on the News screen of my iPhone. (A screen I’ve disabled and don’t miss.) This wilderness of “contrarianism” – a designation easily earned these days; you merely have to mention Orwell or reside in Florida -- requires a measure of vigilance and effort from those who seek the truth there. As opposed to those who go there to relax, because they prefer alt-bullshit to mainstream bullshit. They can just kick their shoes off and wade in.

Does your mind detect any ~disrespect for alt-bullshit in here? For example, what meaning do you think is intended by "They can just kick their shoes off and wade in"?

> Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

That's the thing though: things are not always as they seem (I assume you've seen magic shows & optical illusions, or read to some degree on neuroscience, the numerous forms of psychological bias, etc)?

> The original comment did muddy the waters a bit by taking the inverse of that statement, but the author isn't being ambiguous on their beliefs in that regard.

Here are you referring to shared reality, or your/the author's/my individual highly customized model of reality? It's an important distinction, but one that is rarely made.


You think there are "vast secret legions of domestic terrorists flashing one another the OK sign in shadowy parking lots behind Bass Pro Shops experiencing “temporary” inflation"?

> alt-right Yeah. I think the woke are done. No one actually likes or agrees with them, it's all just preference falsification.


I don't think anyone is under the delusion that domestic terrorists in the US are being secretive any more. That ship somewhat sails after an attempted insurrection.


domestic terrorists, attempting insurrection, without a single fatality on the capitol side?

so, where was the violence?


One of the cops died of injuries sustained on site, lets stop pretending this wasn't a violent confrontation. There were plenty of serious injuries.

Does this look like a peaceful protest, to you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XajBh9oTdqI&feat...


let's not move the goalposts, we aren't arguing whether this was a "peaceful protest", we are arguing whether it was an insurrection aka a violent attempted takeover. If all it takes to overthrow the capital is the same level of violence as a civil riot, I'd say there's something wrong.

> One of the cops died of injuries sustained on site

No sources for this, so I'll assume you're referring to Officer Brian D. Sicknick. So, this might not be true: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-c...

There's a section on this in Wikipedia too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#Subseq...

> On April 19, 2021, the office of the chief medical examiner of the District of Columbia, Francisco J. Diaz, reported that the manner of death was natural and the cause of death was "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis" (two strokes at the base of the brain stem caused by an artery clot).


> If all it takes to overthrow the capital is the same level of violence as a civil riot, I'd say there's something wrong.

You are trying to use body count to measure the seriousness of an attempt to take over the government? It’s starting to look like the Taliban took over Kabul with less violence than what happened in the US Capitol.


Linking to Greenwald really isn't helping your case...


I disagree. Do you identify any mis-information article? Otherwise I don't share your distain.

EDIT: this is an ad-hom. Please respond to the point - I also linked to WP as evidence that your claim is shaky. Refusing to do so because I linked to a journalist you dislike is pure tribalism.


I'm not going to read anything written by Greenwald, he's completely gone off the deep end. He quit his job at the intercept because they wouldn't let him publish conspiracy garbage about the Biden rape accusation unless he could provide some sort of proof - he concluded that being asked to show proof of what he was accusing someone of counted as "being censored".

Anyway, I'll say that just because the guy died of a stroke afterward doesn't mean it wasn't caused indirectly by being blasted in the face by bear mace. Even if his death was completely unrelated, it doesn't make Jan 6 any less of an insurrection.


Again, this is an ad-hom. I didn't claim something was true because Greenwald believes it - I linked to an article addressing the topic, so you can address the content of that article, rather than its author.

> He quit his job at the intercept because they wouldn't let him publish conspiracy garbage ... unless he could provide some sort of proof

doesn't seem to match up with

> just because the guy died of a stroke afterward doesn't mean it wasn't caused indirectly by being blasted in the face by bear mace

where's the proof? various outlets already back-peddled on the claim he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, they have yet to prove anything with regards to bear mace (other than two men carried it).

"Prosecutor: Bear spray not used in Capitol attack on officers, defendants seek bond" -- https://wtop.com/dc/2021/04/men-charged-in-jan-6-bear-spray-...

> Even if his death was completely unrelated, it doesn't make Jan 6 any less of an insurrection.

You stated an officers death as evidence of the level of violence. I don't believe this was true, and I think it does make it less of an insurrection.


and how are conspiracy stories about Russia any more/less reasonable than conspiracy stories about deep (US) gov?


Is it really a conspiracy if US intelligence agencies say Russia has been stirring up shit?

The way right wingers bend over backwards to pretend that Russia doesn't have a long history of this sort of thing never ceases to amaze me.


More abstractly, most everyone bends over backwards to promote their subconsciously estimated personal ~~illusion~~ model of reality as being representative of shared reality.

As the saying goes: "Humans gonna human".


> to pretend that Russia

I didn't pretend anything, I compared two things.

The US intelligence agencies don't themselves have a clean record: COINTELPRO, PRISM, CIA spying on the Senate intelligence committee (then lying about it).

Each of those counts as a conspiracy, and it's of note that people like Edward Snowden have been hunted and chased out of the country (and people like Julian Assange similarly persecuted).


By that logic you should never give away money because your principal will never stop growing.


Any tips on getting this to run as an extension?


It's not currently open source, but I might release it if I can get it cleaned up.


It's not going away any time soon, the app is still available for MacOS and the browser extensions work just fine. Eventually they will stop supporting them but that'll just mean at some point in the future a MacOS/firefox/chrome update will break the existing app and they won't fix it. That might be 2 months from now or it might be 2+ years.


And once that happens, you may no longer be able to access your passwords.


Sure, if you longer have a way to use an older version of MacOS. Not a good idea to leave your sole copy on a machine you don't have full control over.


This is the word processor that GRRM uses, he keeps an ancient DOS computer around just to use WordStar.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/words...


> that GRRM uses

Well...


What's wrong with having a robust stdlib? Are those extra 50 megabytes really a problem?


The issue is not the size of the stdlib but rather the process for how things get in there. IMHO Python's stdlib has a number of modules of sub-standard quality and design. It would be good to have a gradual process for inclusion in the stdlib, so that different 3rd party libraries could be vetted by the community before we bake one into the language.


It's amazing that something that seems as obvious and simple as "shipping stuff in a box" is a relatively recent innovation.

Makes me wonder what seemingly obvious thing we're not aware of right now that will be commonplace 50 years from now.


There were always boxes, but I think the real game changer was standardizing the size and other properties of the box, across the planet.


Absolutely - standardisation is the path to ubiquity. From the screw thread to the accidental standard (ISA) of the IBM PC.

It removes many of the barriers to competition and reduces the risk of large players creating monopolies.

I think it’s fair to say that much of what we see in tech is deliberately engineered to avoid standardisation in order to protect competitive advantage.

Wired did an interesting article on standardisation years ago.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.wired.com/2002/01/standar...


Think about railroads and even early highways. It’s hard to standardize before you have a problem.

Containers have big downsides too... but technology allowed costs to be vaporized with containers.

The other big thing is that containers appeared in the US as the railroads entered their death spirals. You can build a dock anywhere and have trucks show up from 100 companies quickly compared to the negotiation required to live railroads. Think about how quickly the NYC maritime business died and moved to New Jersey... that’s a market that represented ~10-15% of the US population at that time.


Eventually we will figure out better protocols for data federation, replacing centralization of digital infrastructure with standardization.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: