News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by ashkankiani on Saturday October 17, 2026 @09:58AM (#50131242)
Why link to a number, which means roughly nothing, instead of the specific details on the countries you're trying to compare? I have no idea how to break down or make my own assessment of what 0.83 or 0.18 means. Does that 0.83 for the US include all of the people being shipped off without due process to El Salvador, or do they count that as part of El Salvador's Human Right Index?

People like to bring up the Uyghurs immediately, but never really have the same smoke for the US. Also, do we include the prison population in human rights? Do we include access to healthcare? What about systems perpetuating poverty like lack of access to public transportation?

To pre-emptively be clear on my stance or potential bias, I stand by no country in the world. I was born in Iran, and my parents left when I was young to the US because they believed in the American Dream. The irony being that the dominos of why they left were initiated by the US and UK. And long before Trump was elected, but certainly immediately afterwards, I decided to leave the US once I had the means. (Also because of the lack of public transit, the $100k medical bills after an accident, being punched by a homeless person, and having my possessions stolen repeatedly and the cops giving me a :shrug:). I moved to Japan, where I experienced blatant racism for the first time. I moved to Hong Kong (and tbh no real complaints so far), but I am technically subject to the freedom of speech constraints on China.

I have no allegiance to any country or specific people. My allegiance is to all living beings.

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by amelius on Saturday October 17, 2026 @10:56AM (#50131711)
Sorry but you're arguing against a reputable institution here.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by ashkankiani on Saturday October 17, 2026 @11:05AM (#50131775)
I'm not arguing against a reputable institution, I'm arguing against using that reputation + their final number alone without going through the process to verify the methodology myself, which you didn't link to. You only showed the conclusion, which to all of us, should mean very little until we look into how that number was arrived at.

And I don't care if they're reputable, I will look at the methodology and make my own conclusion either way. Appeals to authority are not a substitute for critical thinking.

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by amelius on Saturday October 17, 2026 @11:11AM (#50131827)
We're not talking about a few % difference here. If you want to look into it then fine, but you have to come up with some really good evidence if you think you can debunk anything here.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by pessimizer on Saturday October 17, 2026 @11:23AM (#50131918)
There's absolutely nothing in those numbers to argue against. They are simply providing fluffy quantitative declarations in order for people who don't even claim any particular knowledge or even understanding of the details of the metric (such as yourself) to argue from authority.

If they actually said something, it would be much less effective.

> We're not talking about a few % difference here.

How may freedom percent is it again? Do you lose 1% or 20% for failing to allow foreign ownership of utilities? How many percent do you gain for stopping Russian misinformation?

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by amelius on Saturday October 17, 2026 @11:36AM (#50132029)
The metric was carefully crafted by a group of experts as means of communicating a complicated topic.

I'm not going to discuss it further if you don't have anything substantial to bring to the table.

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by aleqs on Saturday October 17, 2026 @01:28PM (#50133089)
'experts' lmao. Your entire argument boils down to an appeal to authority fallacy.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by amelius on Saturday October 17, 2026 @03:57PM (#50134509)
That fallacy does not apply here as the authority is legitimate and relevant.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by kelnos on Saturday October 17, 2026 @05:20PM (#50135254)
That's just your opinion, not fact.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by aleqs on Saturday October 17, 2026 @06:04PM (#50135596)
Eric Cartman is that you?
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by NamlchakKhandro on Sunday October 18, 2026 @08:49AM (#50140652)
I.e., an appeal to authority
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by switchbak on Sunday October 18, 2026 @01:18PM (#50143116)
That line of reasoning ... everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it.

Seriously - appeal to authority is a fallacy, unless it's an appeal to an authority that I happen to agree with? It's hard to take you seriously.

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by true_religion on Sunday October 18, 2026 @05:08PM (#50145500)
Instead of repeating that they are legitimate, you would've gotten further by saying Human Rights Watch has been around for X years, has reported competently on Y matters even when suppression was attempted by Z country. Their membership is made of A, B, C and this is why you should trust in their data collection as a source that we can use in casual discussion.

Right now, you're basically asking people to trust Human Rights Watch because you trust them. But if people don't trust you, why would they trust your word on what sources are legitimized?

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by lejalv on Saturday October 17, 2026 @01:31PM (#50133108)
We're talking about the country that has tried multiple times to destroy their country, look up Mossadegh for the 1950s and check out the glorious bombing of a school for 2026.

No lessons to take from the US.

PS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...

I know the US thinks only its citizens are human, so "The United States has been involved in hundreds of interventions in foreign countries throughout its history, engaging in nearly 500 military interventions between 1776 and 2026, with half of these operations occurring since 1950 and over 25% occurring in the post-Cold War period” is not probably part of the reputable storytelling

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by j_maffe on Saturday October 17, 2026 @11:12AM (#50131843)
They're not arguing against the institution. They're arguing against the metric .
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by amelius on Saturday October 17, 2026 @11:17AM (#50131880)
Yeah but the metric was invented by that reputable organization and given the enormous difference it's not worth any discussion unless they come up with something good in which case they should probably publish about it.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by aleqs on Saturday October 17, 2026 @01:30PM (#50133101)
If you don't want to have a discussion don't post pointless metrics that you don't even understand.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by lejalv on Saturday October 17, 2026 @01:21PM (#50133023)
They are arguing for you using your brain instead of tethering it to a number.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by tessier2501 on Saturday October 17, 2026 @01:32PM (#50133117)
Yes! By all means, let us appeal to authority and use institutions' reputations to shut down any discussion, rather than thinking about what these figures actually mean, what criteria they're based on, or how well they reflect reality.

edit: wording

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by RobotToaster on Saturday October 17, 2026 @01:36PM (#50133157)
An institution mostly funded by the governments it happens to rank highly, and the open society foundation that's owned by George Soros, a man who's been obsessed with overthrowing China's government since the 80s. https://www.v-dem.net/about/funders/
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by owebmaster on Saturday October 17, 2026 @01:50PM (#50133292)
No he's arguing against your arguments and winning.