LightHugger
LightHugger on Hacker News
Wtf is wrong with you? How else do you expect assaulting a cop with your car to turn out? Violent people should not be viewed as more that pieces of shit. That goes for cops too if they're doing it to innocent people by the way, but that's not the situation being discussed.
And by the way if a citizen kills a cop who is randomly trying to murder them i'd be on the citizen's side too. We live in a country where that situation usually results in absurd police and prosecutor reaction. We won't fix this if you do not defend cops human rights to self defense. Human beings have an extremely strong right to self defense.
Obviously if it was not a cop it would not have been an arrest, but if it was a random person getting running over rather than a cop nothing about my conclusion would change, they would be within their rights to shoot her.
I really don't care at all what a dishonest legal offense (it would be offense not defense remember, if you want the cop prosecuted) would claim when the evidence is so clear and it's only politically motivated insane people saying otherwise. Furthermore "intent to attack" Is actually irrelevant when 1. she did "attack" the cop by hitting him with her car and 2. the cop doesn't have to guess at her intent when he is already being assaulted with a deadly weapon.
It's scary how insane this reply is considering i clearly stated the reason she got shot is hitting a cop with her car. It is not legal to execute someone for evading arrest but violent assault with a deadly weapon justifies proportional use of force. If you hit a cop with your car while evading arrest getting shot is a given.
Replying in this edit due to HN rate limit (it's like 4 posts? crazy, can't even hold a conversation)
> But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee, who again you are not giving the presumption of innocence that I am at least giving the officer
I do not believe her intent was to attack, i believe she intended to escape regardless of whether she ran over the cop. I don't think there's a meaningful difference here. My presumption of innocence for rene good extends this far already but given she was looking directly at the cop who was directly in front of her car while slamming on the gas if i was on a theoretical jury in a theoretical trial for her, i would convict her. We do not have a higher standard available.
Trials aren't held for obvious outcomes, the moment she hit the cop with her car there's no reason for that. I understand some people think that violently attacking someone "with power" like a cop can be justified but there is no chance of convicting a cop of anything in this situation. Out here in the real world there are constant abuses by police of non-violent people and even they aren't put on trial for it. Start there.
Frankly there are a lot of cops who need the death penalty for horrific abuse of their positions to rape and kill and yet just get juggled between departments instead, it's insane. And you're here whining about the obvious justified self defense for political reasons, it's stupid.
The fact is hitting the cop with her car is on video and she knew she was under arrest after spending the day blocking the road. You do not get to rewrite reality with your politically motivated desire for a trial.
> Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.
Yeah, because he killed her in justified self defense with pretty good aim in a snap situation might i add.
He was dragged for persistently lying about it, doing everything in his power to shut down discussion of it, and being absurdly hostile on a personal level to the founder of the initiative unprovoked. Not for being against it.
what's the risk? "Oh no we might have to provide the product we sold!" Lmao. That's the right kind of risk to force on sellers in a market. Sellers risk getting penalized for not providing what they have paid for. Great. Fanastic. Sounds healthy for any market and may even increase average customer confidence enough for a surge in sales, one that can't be created by one company alone.
Ross has had a consistent vision for years and i'm not sure where this delusion otherwise is coming from. At this point i'm wondering if people like you are just astroturf bots funded by the ESA.
There is no reason to reply like this unless you are some kind of scammer with no ethics. I hope this bill bankrupts your business model.
the idea of a "shutdown bill" is absurd and irrelevant to the law being discussed unless you are a scammer being forced to refund people.
this is absurd and untrue. this is like being told you have to pour a concrete pillar 2 meters to the left of where you were planning so that you're not destroying some vital infrastructure, then bemoaning the loss of the concrete pillar industry.
Stop building games to self destruct. Once you fix your bad practices (which, you should not have been doing to begin with, pay for them once with some retooling and moving forward you don't need to pay more, then get some ethics and you will incur fewer costs like this going forward) there is no ongoing cost here.
> I'm surprised AdaFruit did something wrong here. They frequently blog about their stances on issues and seem to try to take the moral high ground on a lot of issues.
This aspect is not very surprising, it is usually moral high grounders who end up found to be doing something wrong, people like to compensate and try to put down others when they know they are in the wrong.
The car wasn't moving until they surrounded her car, that was the issue. She was blocking off traffic deliberately. She had to be arrested but tried to violently escape and was killed as a result of her actions. Please try to be more aligned with reality instead of just being a crazy person repeating false things then not acknowledging each and every time you're proven wrong, as you were here today.
Funnily enough I am a leftist, there are still some of us who aren't crazy or willing to lie for political ends :)
Well, i saw the video of her hitting the cop with her car, i also posted the link for you to watch as well. Not really sure what part is a lie, rather i want to ask you the same question really despite it being pretty easy to guess at the answer.
I'm not sure how shooting someone who is trying to run you over and hits you with their car is a murder in cold blood even if we ignore the trying to obstruct then flee the police parts.
Video of the woman hitting the cop with her SUV, he just barely dodges far enough to escape injury but still gets hit: https://x.com/InsiderWire/status/2008974675171504504
Now that there is video evidence I'm sure you will see reason and stop spamming these threads with this.
She tried to block off a road with her vehicle, then when officers ordered her out she decided trying to flee the scene, even if she had to run over a cop to do it. The video here:
https://x.com/InsiderWire/status/2008974675171504504 shows her hit the officer who then fired at her.
The bullet went through the front windshield, which contradicts the fictional narrative that the shot was taken from the side window. There is another video angle where it can be confusing because there is an officer grabbing the car door. If you don't see the guy in front of the car it can be misleading.
She tried to run down the officer that was in front of the vehicle, not the one to the side that was holding the door handle. Turns out the bullet hole on the glass is on the front of the windshield, it's not possible if she wasn't accelerating towards the officer that fired. I can see how the video could be misleading though.
It's worth keeping in mind that the "market" for a particular player can actually be incredibly small depending on their interests. In the most extreme example, a player might be a fan specifically of a single IP or series of games. Call of duty is one good example because there really are a lot of people who are like this. Video game IPs are a government granted monopoly on a small scale, and the word monopoly is not there for no reason, there is only one place to get CoD if you are a fan of CoD. Predictably, these companies follow the OA's suggested strategy very closely!
Oh so releasing the game client is easy but releasing the game server is a legal/IP problem suddenly? I think you are concern trolling.
That specific set of policies is being specifically implemented by IBM/Red hat. It's not exactly a small niche company, and it is very obviously directly related to the situation and the need to fork. It's also not a partisan interpretation, it's the only objective legal interpretation. Objective truth exists despite your efforts to pretend otherwise. Yes, there are stupid ignorant people who will see the words "DEI bad" interpret it wrongly. But it doesn't make them correct.
DEI doesn't just "piss some people off", it's outright illegal discrimination and red hat's concequences are currently working their way through the court systems. This strange equivocation from things that are clearly on completely different levels is tiresome.
If you personally are one of these people who think hurting people with racial discrimination is on the same level as typing "Together we'll make X great again!" then you are likely very deep in ideological capture. Everyone regardless of political alignment who is a decent person should be able to see that one of these matters and the other does not.
> The "no DEI" bit is a common "slogan" from people who by many are seen to want to ignore discrimination and pretend it isn't a problem, often because they are seen as quite happy for discrimination to continue. As such, to a lot of people when someone makes a claim like that adjacent to claiming not to want to discriminate, it rings hollow, and in fact often signals to them that the person using that language is likely to either be a racist or is fine with racists.
This very accurately describes the pro-dei faction, i'm not sure why you'd associate that with the anti-dei faction. You know, active lawsuits and real individual examples of people being harmed by ongoing discrimination are pretty solid evidence. In the end there's only people who are for prejudiced discrimination and people against prejudiced discrimination. I don't care which flavor you have but right now the truth is Xlibre is against it and red hat is for it. Anything else simply isn't aligned with reality.
I guess it just comes down to there being a lot of insane racist people in tech right now who view any opposition to their provable-in-the-courts racism as working against their broader ideological goals and therefore a valid target for attacks on every front. Very odd and unhealthy for open source. Hopefully these people get some of their own medicine.
"repeat words back to people" isn't the problem here though anyways, it's dishonest to pretend that's what matters here. not the mass bans, censorship, one sided articles, misinformational misinterpretations, zero acknowledgement about faces, and the insane double standards where on one side you have a guy who is "political" by saying he's anti dei and welcomes everyone of various politics and identities, and on the other hand you have the DEI corporation currently embroiled in multiple lawsuits for discriminating against real people not just based on politics but their skin color. It's an insane double standard.
the xlibre guy said "no dei" in a fork that is separating from a company embroiled in racist discrimination lawsuits for using DEI to hurt real people.
Is that really involving politics? In a way it is, sure, but again, unlike red hat, IBM and friends, he has pledged not to discriminate against contributors on the basis of politics. Red hat and IBM openly continue to discriminate against contributors and employees on not only the basis of politics but skin color as well. They wield their CoC like a cudgel to get rid of anyone they don't like with no semblance of fair enforcement. It's a series of struggle sessions, man.
So, if you're accusing him of being political, but you're not accusing red hat of being political, you're probably not really accusing him of being political, you're probably just either woefully misinformed or outright racist.
Can you explain why you think someone who pledges not to discriminate against people for politics (while forking from a corp that does, it's not just a random comment, it's part of the reason a fork is needed) is more political than a company that actively discriminates against people for politics and also their skin color?
It absolutely is character assassination in the context of what's been happening. News sites that have praised the xlibre author for countless articles are suddenly doing a 180 because the people who pay their bills are the same people running wayland and embroiled in anti discrimination lawsuits for abusing DEI to hurt people.
That you care more about "make x11 great again" more than red hat and IBM perpetrating actual cases of racist discrimination tells me a lot about you. You're either in an echo chamber and do not have all the information or are deliberately choosing to ignore it. Either way you aren't in the morally just position you think you are.
This didn't happen because redhat/ibm/microsoft took control of the project and decided they wanted to kill it. They have said this directly on social media that this is their explicit goal so it's not as if this is a conspiracy of some sort, it's just their publicly stated goal. They then deliberately stopped merging changes and left it to rot until the contributors got frustrated enough to fork it.
Now a massive gamergate-esque coordinated character assassination campaign against the creator of xlibre is ongoing even from publications that have many previous articles praising the same contributor at length. Corporate control of open source is very dangerous to the ecosystem as they also fund the "journalists" writing these articles who are willing to defend every decision they make.