metadope

You seem to be assuming a lot, both before and during the question you eventually get to. Lawyers challenge with "assuming facts not in evidence" [no, not appealing to authority here, I just like that phrasing].

Let me try to correct your mistaken assumptions.

> HN is so much against people whose job is to arrest people who broke federal laws.

I don't know of anyone on HN who is 'much against' legitimate law enforcement. We very much want people who break federal laws to be arrested.

> those laws are not really -new, they were just not enforced during the previous administration as strictly (forgive my spelling correction here, but it is an important word. Correct me if I misunderstand you).

I think you might be referring to things like the DACA[0][1] program, which was created during Obama's administration, cut back during Trump 1.0, restored to its former glory during the Biden oasis, and has fallen out of favor again under Trump[2]. I'm just guessing. But understand that "not enforced...as strictly" is a political talking point and bone of contention. It's a judgment call that history will make (if the generations to come bother to remember us).

> Do people really care about the people who broke the laws or just hate the current administration so much?

Are those our only choices? This is what I've always known as a "loaded question" (when did you stop beating your wife?).

Two choices, one or the other, to help you to understand this reality?

I'm sorry xiphias2, but are you for real? Your post doesn't match up to my quick & dirty assessment of your profile and previous comments. Your post reeks of pretense: has someone else taken over your account?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_... [1] https://www.uscis.gov/DACA [2] https://www.uscis.gov/daca

> And let’s not forget the Epstein files [snip]

No, please, let's do forget about Epstein. We've gone beyond the point of no return; there is no reputational damage to Trump that will change anything; the avalanche has begun and there is no immediate shelter for anyone, anywhere.

These are now the United States of Roy Cohn, where everyone in the federal government claims all authority and denies all responsibility. They will continue to lie and deny, and attack attack attack. This is the apprentice lawyer's lowdown and dirty gameplan: to claim victory in everything, no matter how egregious the loss or failure; to never admit to any mistakes, never accept defeat; to never stop attacking enemies, real or imagined.

This is Trump teaching his cabinet what Roy Cohn taught him: the mindless attack-dog strategy. It is a wonderful stance for a lawyer to take. Who wouldn't want a lawyer like that, working for them? But this US administration should not be built on this rabid aggression against the American people (but it is). The fact that the ghost of a long-dead and demented lawyer is now haunting the halls of our federal government-- in every cabinet office and hanging from every branch-- influencing and participating in the same rabid hate-- repeating the same frothing-at-the-mouth bald-faced lies-- tells me that no amount of Epstein taint will make any difference.

They need to go to hell.

And we need to send them there.

Thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=SanjayMehta for guiding me to this post.

This is a Substack site with a redirect (just in case you've sworn off Substack).

Here you appear to be using "illegal aliens" as a synonym for "immigrants".

Groups that aid and support immigrants are doing a service that benefits America and all Americans; we should give them money so they can continue to help.

Immigration is of benefit to most nations; we are no different. But if and when you call immigrants illegal aliens, you're removing an important distinction and distorting reality.

Have you ever seen an immigration application? Ever examined the regulations that legal immigrants must navigate?

Legal immigration is a quagmire, but some would rather turn away from the swamp rather than drain it; some would like to pretend that immigration is the same thing as invasion, to justify the lazy approach that groups everyone together in an alien blur.

Agreed; in general, doxxing people is wrong. In general, politics are polarizing and reactive, and are to be avoided on a mostly-technical discussion site. In general, Gruber is an Apple review guy. These rules-of-thumb are useful and proper, generally. But you know what comes next, right?

The exceptions.

I think we're seeing some extraordinary events irl that the HN community and moderators are dealing with organically. Exceptions are being made; eventually the rules of thumbs will return to prominence.

Yes, I love the redundancy of English. Language makes a playground of our minds. And yes, "picturing" is another way of saying "imagining", but to me and my mind it carries more of a connotation of visualization. Imagining may have its root in "imaging", but encompasses more imho, describing the entire Reality Construction Kit.

"Unforced choice" is an interesting phrase. Perhaps another discussion, another time. End self-expression.

Apologies for my sibling reply here (now flagged and downvoted to oblivion) if it was offensive to you. I thought I knew you irl and was making an overly familiar joke. Typos are nit inherently funny.

Ah bro don't make me look up another word:

efficacious? Going from context, that means effective, right?

I'm picturing a lot of uniformed users in McDonald's yellow and hairnets.

Coincidentally, my wife promised me some kinetic interdiction this weekend.

Si habla español: Let's go!

It's a good theory.

The militia that DHS has deployed in search of immigration law violators has spilled over into confrontations with US citizens partly because of the lack of accountability, transparency, and training. By making these newbie teams of gung ho militia anonymous and independent of any oversight, the DHS administration has lit a fuse for an inevitable explosion.

I don't know what was said between the agents in the moments before events unfolded that lead to Renee Nicole Good's death on camera(s). I do suspect (and speculate) that a spontaneous decision was made, inside the cab of the officer's vehicle, by one of the three officers involved (who was in charge?), to exit the pickup, move forward to demand immediate compliance, to exert force under a sudden assertion of authority.

To me, watching the videos, it appeared that in that critical moment of deciding to prosecute the Good woman, the agents had exhausted their patience with the scattered crowd of citizen 'observers', annoyed by the entire exercise of locals with their camera phones and their ignorant application of so-called civil rights. The impatience and aggression is clear and visible in one of the videos, which show the sudden exit from the pickup, the aggressive approach to the driver's side door, the three commands from one officer to "Get out of the car!" (with the third command adding an emphatic expletive).

This emotional behavior exhibits the result of explicit psychological conditioning, the development of mistrust and hostility towards citizenry which imho is purposefully encouraged to unify the team. The team is coached to make the militia into a cohesive unit that will hold itself elite, empowered, enabled to enforce retribution for whatever slight a team or team leader may perceive.

They have been told they are righteous in their mission. They have been told that they bear the full authority of the federal government, and that they have the right to detain and/or arrest anyone who they perceive is obstructing them in performing their duties. They have been coached and prepared for battle, not just focused on the criminal illegal immigrants that are their purvue, but for anyone who appears to be in their way.

Without accountability, and without interview access to the agents involved, we'll never know what was said and decided between those three officers. Only they know how and why and when they decided to take down the Good woman, instead of moving on to the next task in their team's agenda. Only they can speak to their intentions, what they thought their probable cause was, or even if they considered probable cause, arrest, prosecution.

Maybe they only wanted payback. Maybe they were just frustrated and thus determined that the team's morale needed lifting with a good old application of force under the auspices of authority. Maybe yanking a woman out of her vehicle and taking her into custody in full view of all these citizen journalists would help spread the word that ICE is not to be messed with.

But we'll never know, because the entire apparatus of the federal government is no longer to be trusted, not to investigate and report on itself.

Donald Trump wants a national police force accountable to no one but himself.

I would expect humans to care about humans. Your judgment of hypocrisy is yours to own; you point out nothing but your own opinion.

You left umpteenth behind a long time ago; you find hypocrisy everywhere, no?

Watching an innocent and beautiful American woman being shot in the face three times at point blank range in broad daylight by an agent of her own federal government while sitting in the cocoon of her car, in a confrontation that could easily have been avoided if the federal agents had simply waved her on through... this is more than "a domestic crime", as you put it.

You may forget that the US drone strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats are still an open question and an ongoing story. The video evidence is scant, the scandal is real, but we still don't know the details. Who were those fishermen, who will tell their stories? How we learn more about what was real?

The kidnapping of the Maduro couple is another act that is related and still developing. In both of these cases, the events are distant and nebulous, uncertain as to where they land on a spectrum of good and evil.

But this murder of an American citizen in a senseless act of violence by its government is felt deeply because it is immediate and well-documented, highly visible and tragic, with hardly any of the uncertainties that distance from those other events bring.

Militia on our streets without discipline or uniforms. That's what caused this tragedy.

The administration early on made the decision to allow/require ICE agents to wear whatever tactical gear they had, along with masks, and authorized/required an intentional lack of insignia.

The lack of a uniform and insignia is a real problem for ordinary Americans.

We're used to subjecting ourselves to authority. We're willing to obey commands, to cooperate, to assist, even, the officers in uniform. We are law-abiding and respectful, even to the lowly rent-a-cops in the mall.

That respect and cooperation and obedience absolutely depends on the recognition of the uniform, the badge, the symbol of authority displayed without doubt.

Someone in the administration got the bright idea to remove the symbol, the uniform, and decided that everyone should now bow down in respect to ununiformed masked militia roaming our towns in plain pickups and SUVs.

Someone thought it would be 'cool' or 'bad-ass'; they still do, I'll bet.

But the lack of uniform changes the psychology of enforcement, imho. It places less demand on the discipline of the anonymous tactical-fatigue wearer. Add the mask and you're almost there. Just need jack-boots, and you complete the transformation of officer (blessing) into thug (curse). There is no accountability, no real standard to live up to, when the uniform is gone, the mask is on, and you, as an ostensible agent of federal authority, you are Anonymous. [Yes, I would like to see ICE issue all field agents the Guy Fawkes mask. There's a uniform for you./s]

The lack of a uniform creates moments of doubt and uncertainty in a US citizen as well. We are comfortable complying with commands from an officer in uniform. But we're just not used to unpredictible swarms of masked and often angry militia pouring out of dark windowed F150s and barking out conflicting orders, surrounding us, yanking on our door handles, pulling a sidearm and pressing it against the glass of our windshield.

This tragic confrontation has to become the last. We cannot continue to tolerate roaming anonymous militia wearing disguises, conducting unpredictable federal enforcement raids on our otherwise peaceful streets, under the cover of anonymity. We need these officers to be a part of our community, to come out from behind their masks, to put on a uniform we can identify and associate with the real positive authority of a well-intentioned federal government. [Yes, prerequisite, I know, we first need a federal government that is well-intentioned.]

This is someone's attempt to re-litigate reality.

I browsed with javascript disabled (as I always do when visiting unknown or untrusted sites) and discovered the page was rendered useless (blank).

I viewed the source to get the gist.

My pull quote from the source code is a surrealistic illustration of the content:

     <!-- Duplicate set for seamless looping -->

The lie is repeated ad infinitum, on an endless loop.

To break out of the loop, might I suggest turning to Jack Smith[0][1] (but be forewarned, the video is 8 hours and the PDF has redactions).

[0]https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2025/12/Smith-D... [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGtlalhdL4c

The links provided by @Terr_ above show that this particular de-funding was indeed approved and ratified by the legislative branch, passed by the house and the senate, signed into law by the president, in July of 2025.

So, under the color of legal and proper authority, deed done, second shoe now drops.

I am a noob. I remember, it was not too long ago, when I first read the guidelines, took a deep breath, and submitted my very first comment.

I was immediately downvoted.

Zero karma. Into the Darkness. It was 200 days before I tried again (I'm sensitive).

As helpful as the guidelines[0] are, they are just the beginning of a learning experience. I've decided that participating in the HN community is like playing Zork[1]. You have to step to the edges to discover the boundaries. You have to feel your way through; you need to absorb the feedback you receive and find your way, without falling into the pit.

Often moderation comes from the veterans here. Some of the moderation process does seem mysterious to me; I am still exploring; it takes time to understand and map out all these connected rooms.

There is sometimes an 'unfairness' but life is equally unfair to everybody.

I hope I am never shadowbanned.

Now, let me get back to my game.

  > Throw the sack at the troll

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zork

"I've got your hemisphere right here," he said, bending over.

Anything critical of the administration is going to be, by definition, political.

There is a large contingent within HN who never want any political discussion.

This appears to be an ongoing dynamic tension. The flagging might not be from the right. Just same old same old HN foosball.

> If they put AI into systemd I’m retiring to a cabin.

Mot bad

They'd call it systemaid

And you've been right about Trump, Rubio and Venezuela all along, so keep posting your opinion. I sure hope you're wrong about Cuba being next, but I'm sure there's some Miami residents who are hoping for that as the next adventure.

Please don't ask a question, then follow immediately with your opinion (showing your question was meaningless rhetoric). You had me going for a moment there, as I was still in a state of mind, still digesting what our Venezulan GP had shared, still trying to imagine what ordinary people in country were feeling about this whole mess, and I thought for a moment that you'd asked a legit question.

I would like to know more of the potential benefits of this op, as seen by the people of Venezuela. Is it possible that ordinary people will benefit?

This headline is an awful application of the HN algorithm.

The original headline reads On The Fence, which, of course, is a meaningful phrase (though wordy and trite, wsj).

Eliminating the first word On is a dumb mistake.

Might I suggest we allow a little editorial discretion here, and change the headline to read "Debating a Spending Decision? Try the 0.01% Rule" or some such.

This just in: 1776 comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46473348

No guideline will divert a determined, thundering herd.

We are what we do, and it appears we do care about the world beyond our immediate technical interests.

Special occasion. Exception to prove the rule.

[EDIT] I just realized, I'd already added some tech into the otherwise political discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46476424

> Nobody would predict anything with 100% confidence.

We're all going to die.

This too shall pass.

100%

My favorite computer was a MIGA

> repellent efflorescence

I had to look up the definition of efflorescence.

This phrase is used very early in the Defector article (¶ 2) and I doubt if 1 in 100 readers will immediately glean its meaning.

I'm still not sure that I understand its meaning, in the context of the article. even after looking it up and having a glimmer of a hint of what might be intended.

repellent can mean repulsive, as in disgusting, or it can mean to repel, as with mosquitoes.

efflorescence refers to the white residue (salt) that accumulates on your baseball cap or in your armpit as you sweat, or on your basement walls after years of high humidity. Similar to naturally-adonized aluminum, it is crusty.

I'm a well-read elderly English speaker with a decent vocabulary. I adhere to a philosophy of live and learn; I am not surprised by gaps in my education; when I discover something new I am often intrigued and grateful. I adore good metaphors, similes, unexpected juxtapositions and creative usage.

Maybe the author just finished acid-washing his driveway so repellent efflorescence was on his mind. Or maybe an AI wrote that second paragraph.

Sounds interesting but I get a blank page with javascript disabled.

Tried your other page (https://graph.henryn.ca/ featured here on HN >1 year ago) and I got a Too Many Redirects error, followed by an attempt to visit your 'front page' (https://henryn.ca/) and got the same error.

Not a criticism, just FYI.

> got lost in the Berghain

That happened to me once. Took me days to find my way out.