News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by wozniacki on Saturday June 01, 2024 @11:53PM (#40551191)
You could take your anti-car, dense-living, 15 minute city agenda somewhere else.

No one with a head above their shoulders is interested in those Quixotic perspectives anymore , not after witnessing the events of the last 3-4 years.

You and others like you are akin to the sneering know-it-alls who laughed at the idea that dependence on a single source of foreign energy is perhaps not the brightest idea.[1]

At best youre misguided.

At worse youre straight up shill plants of foreign governments that would like us go down a moronic path just like the Germans did with dismantling their nuclear plant infrastructure thanks to eco-shitheads. Meanwhile France has some 52 nuclear power plants and is building more.[2]

[1]

GERMANS LAUGH AT TRUMP when he warns "Germany will become totally dependent Russian energy" UN 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE

[2]

List of power stations in France - Nuclear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Fran...

Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by jcrites on Sunday June 02, 2024 @12:05AM (#40551232)
Please take a moment to review the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Please don't post insinuations about [] shilling[] and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.

Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by stctw on Sunday June 02, 2024 @10:09AM (#40554274)
His account is 14 years old. He knows the guidelines. Why did you spend your time itemizing supposed violations of them?

Meanwhile, I see in these comments many such violations while advocating the other side of the issue, and none of them are downvoted, flagged, or chastised.

There is a persistent pattern on one side of the political spectrum to hold their opponents to various rules while allowing themselves to be exempt, and it is prominent on HN as well.

If you are here for open, honest, and civilized discussion, will you vouch for some of the comments which violate no guidelines but were flagged because they are in favor of the use of automobiles? Will you chastise some of the shallow dismissals which are against the use of automobiles?