hnhg

I would guess it seems very naïve to the overly cynical. And in 2026, being overly cynical is rather mainstream (understandably so).

They are both infuriating, as a long-time user of both.

I've known people involved in the creation of the Intercept. It wasn't funded with the purpose to report the Snowden documents, but rather that came along as an opportunity that they thought would create a big splash for the launch of a new news platform that would shake up the industry. The billionaire involved didn't anticipate the fury from the authorities (i.e. receiving personal, serious phone calls from various govt. figures and agencies) and they quickly came to regret everything and adjusted course. I know this is a "trust me bro" comment but it's worth sharing.

I'm not arguing, there are a lot of things at play, clearly.

Did they have phones back then?

Taking the UK as an example, legislation restricting the use of children under 14 in employment was only adopted in 1933. Previously it looked more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_the_British_In...

The USA didn't change things up considerably until the 1930s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_in_the_United_Stat...

Not soon after, obviously ww2 and then the baby boom after that. The role of children in families changed hugely in the 20th century.

Your great great grandparents didn't effectively get fined for having each child. It was quite the opposite.

You make some really good points, but I feel they are a result of a greed-pilled, mean-spirited and individualistic-to-the-point-of-self-harm culture we're all sadly living under rather than the underlying cause.

Also bear in mind that the industrial revolution in the UK occurred under the British Empire, which extracted a lot of wealth and resources from its territories, usually under less-than-fair arrangements. It is hard to imagine the British industrial revolution without this benefit - they were not separate aspects of the economy.

In the short-term. Thanks for proving my point on perspective.

We're also facing a climate and pollutant crisis as a species so we seem only capable of thinking in the short term. We're not doing that well right now after only a brief period of industrialisation.

It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here.

You might want to update yourself on what's happening in the USA too - 'Zine publisher sentenced to 50 years in prison for "material support to terrorists"':

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/...

You need to start using LLMs a lot and then you will know how we know.

Edit: You know how you can recognise someone just from their gait while they walk towards you? I would struggle to describe that for an individual person but it doesn't mean I can't identify them from that alone.

It's called lobbying.

We weren't meant to have windows made of glass. Such items are entirely unnatural. According to pg, we must be wary of them.

Another view is that theatre is local, low-infrastructure storytelling. It's been so important to us as a species, we don't want to forget it in preference of only following storytelling distributed by corporations.

I guess I am talking about analysing the written works more than the final acted piece (e.g. a book of Sam Shepard plays vs their performance). That would be good enough, I think.

I totally get why you would want to avoid the rabbit hole but your work is super interesting and I hope that you do get the luxury of being able to dive into adjacent formats and comparing them.

This is a very interesting concept. I see in your replies to other comments that you are looking at movies from different cultures, which would be a great test of your idea. Once you have sufficiently advanced, it would be great to look at theatre too. I have a hypothesis that movie-writing began to diverge from theatre-writing in the very late 20th century in terms of structure and writing with the rise of the blockbuster and the emphasis on spectacle, and we lost something after that.

Was that ever an issue for you?

Minsky, the noted Epstein associate, accused of sex with minors according to court documents, didn’t really care for self examination? Yeah that tracks.

A large part of accounting is intellectual work that rewards diligence and intelligence, but not creativity so much. A lot of QA/certification jobs are like this too. It's important stuff that involves a lot of "checking".

How is that different from "Compact Discs weren't invented, they arrived"?

There is obvious survivorship bias in the analysis throughout this article. You could reframe it as startups that succeed done have these problems - well, duh! Edit: actually the more i go through it, it sounds like chatgpt prose, especially by the end.

Also noteworthy in Algeria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timgad

(I think I read somewhere that Algeria has the most Roman ruins outside of Italy, although I could be mistaken)

I've worked a lot with Oxbridge and Ivy League folks and there is nothing particularly special about them. An Oxbridge degrees bestows an out-of-the-box premium personal brand, as you've demonstrated, as well as the social network, but not superior ability, in my experience

Has anyone made a ranked list of the most mentioned people or historical facts on HN. Hedy must be on there somewhere: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=hedy+lamarr

I know very little about this but just an observer your reply did little to refute any of the points made. You should loosen up a bit and keep an open mind about those points raised because it feels like you’re dismissing them.

You've proven their point for them.

You’re right, it’s not art until the artist has shown at a reputable gallery and sold their first piece to a collector.

That makes some sense. Are they paid for this?