Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | joxdosba's commentslogin

Am European, at least in the big cities, public transport is mostly not worth using unless you are too poor to afford better options.

Too crowded, too hot, there’s a decent chance of arriving at your destination drenched in sweat. Not to mention how absolutely gross the people sitting next to you will often be.

I’ll happily take a few parking fines every day rather than getting in the tube.


I could afford a car and I also live in a big European city. But a car is a huge hassle here. Just trying to figure out where to park the thing every time is a huge stressor. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with that anymore. Nor the fuel, the fines, the maintenance, the insurance, the road tax, the parking fees all that stuff. I could afford it but I'd rather spend it on something I actually enjoy.

Public transport here costs a fixed fee a month for which I couldn't even top up a quarter tank.


Nobody uses it, it's too crowded

People mostly use it because they can’t afford the better options.

McDonald’s is also extremely popular, as are Coca Cola and Bud light.


How can it be crowded if nobody uses it?

I suppose the charitable interpretation is that those who would invest considerable time campaigning for this are deeply into gaming, which is an activity typically associated with younger people.

There’s also the fact that through events like Gamergate, the term “gamer” has become highly charged and is not something most adults would want to be associated with.


That's an interesting point of view. For me, people who advocate for preservation are usually older because they remember the times when you could just buy games and they would keep working forever. While younger people were born into the world where online games is the norm so they don't expect everything to last long.

I’m sure the preservation folks will tend to be older, but they’re still going to end up grouped with all other gamers.

It’s a deeply unfortunate association. The “gamer” identity is toxic to the point where “gamer word” means “racial slur”.


Gamergate has nothing to do with the SKG initiative.

It’s a bad look to have to explicitly deny things like this.

You brought it up, what do you mean? If one were to bring up allegations of you associating with unpopular movements, would you not clear your name? Having checked your post history, I have to genuinely ask if you're a troll account.

I didn’t suggest that the two were directly related.

You made the association. You literally brought them up yourself.

I simply pointed out that gaming and especially gamers have some pretty extreme negative connotations, which is true.

I could dump you links to research detailing the connections between the online gaming community and right wing extremism, but I’m pretty sure you know what I’m talking about.

“Gamer” is basically synonymous for “neo-nazi incel”, and GSK refers to itself as a “global coalition of gamers”. That’s a pretty bad look!


Have you ever touched grass? You could also argue that posting in an online message board is linked with right wing extremism because there are right wing extremists posting stuff online.

It’s a war, par for the course to execute people for ”speech crimes” during such times.

We executed William Joyce and assassinated many like him, nobody seriously questions the morality of that. They deserved their fates a thousand times over.

Not commenting on whether or not this particular individual deserved their fate, but on a more general level.


What is congress going to do? Say “never negotiate with the US”?

It’s not like congress can very feasibly reject this deal in the end, Iran would just extort the gulf countries and it’d be even harder to sell an intervention.


Iran has been bombed at least twice during negotiations. Surely there is some skepticism that the US will not keep the deal.

There is no winning move -which is why this never should have been started. Congress absolutely can and should reject the deal. I thought we were worried about the deficit? Or is that just when the next guy is in charge?


Congress will find a way to make sure this money is paid out in 2029. Then they will blame Democrats for the hole in the budget and our stupid electorate will believe them.

It’s been this way for almost my entire life and I’ll be collecting SS soon.


If the congress rejects this deal, it cripples the US ability to negotiate in the future and essentially just forces an unconditional US surrender as nobody has appetite for a ground invasion of Iran.

Congress can only sabotage deals like this at an immense cost to the US’s future ability to negotiate anything with anyone, and it certainly can’t sabotage it’s way into a more favourable deal.


I think you're underestimating both the amount of damage Trump has already done for the future ability to negotiate, and the desire of everyone else to be not bombed by the US.

Everyone already knows, any deal with the US does not bind the US, only the other party. But it still might be preferrable to the alternative of no deal at all.


> Say “never negotiate with the US”?

The way Tom Cotton did to Iran over Obama? And then Trump did when he tore up the JCPOA?

America has straight up broken treaties before. Most countries have. You negotiate with who you have at the table in geopolitics. Diplomats who refuse to negotiate with someone have short, useless careers.


The article says "funded by the gulf coast coalition" so it doesn't sound like they're planning on asking Congress.

No way congress passes that appropriation. They wouldn't pass the first JCPOA which is why Trump could shred it so easily.


>No way congress passes that appropriation

No way congress passes an appropriation you just invented, which even the most optimistic Iranian propagandists are not claiming to be happening?

I mean yeah. Most random things you can come up with are likely to be things that congress will never pass.


Who invented? It's the headline of the article, attributed to Vance. Yes, there's been a lot of conflicting messaging about it.

It’s the Trump admin signature big number that goes on all documents, not a reference to real money that exists or is genuinely expected to exist.

You're saying once the deal is signed the president will say "lol Iran, the gulf coalition doesn't exist, you get nothing"?

Sure, I'm just saying congress wouldn't fund that if asked.

Of course they wouldn’t, the admin is claiming the seemingly non-existent ”gulf coast coalition” will fund it.

This is a completely free service

It is an indisputable fact that when polled, most Israelis openly support genocide.

People justified their anti-Muslim hate after 9/11 with similar statements about polls saying most Muslims saw Bin Laden in a good light, and have anti-West views.

Not saying I agree with any of it, but I find the parallels illuminating. If anyone wonders why there's more anti-semitism now, s/he can perhaps compare it with how all Muslims are condemned as being members of a barbaric sect after any terrorist attack (yes, even attacks where the perpretator doesn't claim to be doing it for Allah).


Hold on, you're doing a little gymnastics here. People are very deliberately talking about Israel being in favour of the genocide, and quite understandably saying that their government should not be supporting Israel - with "not supporting" meaning anything from BDS to simply not handing billions of dollars to them. Some of the most vocal and strident supporters of this are Jewish. The groups attempting to connect the genocide to Judaism are the US, British and Israeli governments & news media - who are all broadly pro-Israel.

Additionally the anti-Muslim hate was not "ah let's very justifiably cut ties with some mad country" it involved widespread and open islamophobia, calls for mass deaths and indeed invasions of muslim-majority countries.

The two situations are not remotely alike


Can you provide these sources?

First google result https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-03/ty-article/.p...

At least according to this study, almost all Israelis are monsters who openly support genocide.


I wouldn't be surprised if the results of a poll for actual genocide would be the same, but expulsion is not genocide. I really wish people would stop diluting the meaning of genocide at every opportunity.

Forced displacement and ethnic cleansing is a core component of genocide, you're making a distinction without a difference.

I am somewhat late, but you're completely wrong. To engage in metaphors, cutting someone is a core component of surgery. This does not make surgery, even if failed and lethal, murder. To engage your point, genocide does not require displacement, hence displacement cannot be a core component of genocide. Genocide is the eradication of a people. Moving a people does not eradicate them. There is no reason to conflate the two. (There is, but it's mostly for political reasons).

[flagged]


The surrounding Arab states already ethnically cleansed the indigenous Jews from the majority of the Middle East.

Israel put in a lot of work to induce Arab Jews to migrate. That includes false flag attacks on synagogues. Surprised you don't know this.

Synagogues such as..?

The Lavon Affair is a matter of public record, so definitely not out of character.

Yes, Israel attempted one false flag attack 72 years ago, intending to damage some empty buildings with no casualties. Still nothing to do with any synagogue.

Yes, the Zionist tactic is to attack, deny, obfuscate, admit but claim that it is not at all indicative of a pattern.

I only gave that example because it cannot be denied. The nature of such ops is to have plausible deniability, such as in the case of the 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings, despite the British, (the ones who are ultimately responsible for the modern state of Israel), concluding that:

"The British Embassy in Baghdad assessed that the bombings were carried out by Zionist activists trying to highlight the danger to Iraqi Jews, in order influence the State of Israel to accelerate the pace of Jewish emigration. Another possible explanation offered by the embassy was that bombs were meant to change the minds of well-off Jews who wished to stay in Iraq."

but there are other examples[1] demonstrating this is not something that is so unlike Israel as you seem to want to portray.

1 - https://www.timesofisrael.com/disguised-as-stone-throwers-un...


Jews and arabs lived there peacefully together for hundreds if not thousands of years ... until the British arrived and started their games...

Which is a reasonable position, given that the Jews within this specific locale are mostly homicidal maniacs.

Given the context, Palestinians wanting to kill every last Israeli Jew is a totally defensible position. It’s a natural reaction to a band of murderous European invaders coming to occupy their homes.


Right. So you are pro-genocide yourself, but only of certain groups of people.

The average American voter primarily uses their vote in an effort to hurt other people who might support a different team.

[flagged]


If you go outside, you’ll find the vast majority of Americans thought Trump would make an acceptable president. Either they voted for him or didn’t vote against him.

It’s because their definition of “acceptable” mostly involves screwing over the other team.


I go outside daily in red rural America and this is simply not true. People voted, like they always have and always will, on their wallet and expectations on who will make it a little heavier. The exact same will happen as it swings wildly back the other way if gas doesn’t come back to normal.

> vast majority

Trump won by 1.5 margin points, what are you on about?

Give me your address I'll have the grass shipped to you my man.


You are forgetting to count everyone who voted for him by not voting against him.

That's an unfair way of looking at things. Many people don't vote because they don't think they can change anything. Furthermore, the way the U.S. voting system works, if you are in a deep blue or deep red state, your vote will have no effect, since all the states electorates will go towards whoever won the popular vote in that state. So it's really a waste of time unless you live in a swing state.

Why would anyone ever exclude true mitm?

Various domain registrars have been compromised over and over again (often by children!), resulting in companies like Tesla and Cloudflare getting owned.

The reality is that any vaguely competent attacker can compromise a court clerk and just compel e.g. the .com registry to hand over whatever domain they want.

Although I suppose the aforementioned problem has significant implications beyond dns…


>Why would anyone ever exclude true mitm?

Same reason security programs exclude social engineering, even though that's a pretty common way for companies to get pwned.


Excluding SE is to make sure people do not spam customer support and launch annoying phishing campaigns. None of that is applicable for local software running on your own computer.

No, excluding SE is to make sure the bounty program is incentivizing things that inform the product security team. Social engineering is a corpsec function; they're not even the same teams.

Sure, but this is more akin to dismissing a 1click RCE as “social engineering” because an employee has to be convinced to click a link.

Only second to making intellectually dishonest criticisms of perceived behaviours

Fences and speed bumps are hilarious defences if we are supposed to believe AI companies about the dangers of this technology.

Having no safeguards is probably safer than having safeguards which do nothing but create a false sense of security.


Idk, whether we believe them or not, I believe the life scientists who are calling for regulation around the labs that produce DNA sequences. If they’re concerned, regardless of whether I trust the AI labs, speed bumps could help by giving those scientists a reasonably window in which to be notified and act.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: