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

This is an area where Mastodon ought to shine. Departments/organisations can create their own instances, with named users. Interested constituents follow those users with their client of choice. Direct following means you avoid the federation dramas.

No algorithim means that people get the updates they want when they're posted. Users get a familiar-looking client to bang out the quick updates.

Obviously the issue is someone will need to run it, but if you're not open to public signups then the moderation burden doesn't exist and it's just a case of keeping things updated.


On the last point, it's a lot harder to manage than you're making it sound. A public org isn't going to gate signups.

You wouldn't let Joe Public create an email account on your mail server, why would you let them do so on a mastodon instance?

Sorry, I misread your first comment. So only the org can post and people can only view. Doesn't seem like people would follow it then.

But that's not how Mastodon works.

Like email, I sign up for a Mastodon account on a server that suits my tastes. I then follow other accounts, on other servers, using a client - I use Ivory on the mac & iPhone (because it's made by the same company who made Tweetbot) - and those accounts show up in my feed in chronological order, like Twitter in the old days.


Are you actually 'both sidesing' slavery?


I'm pushing back on Chermska1's effort to say that "well actually, the confederacy wasn't really about slavery".


They didn't say the Confederacy wasn't really about slavery, they said it was much more than that. And it's those more abstract ideologies which have persisted through American politics, as traced in the history podcast episode I posted in a sibling.



The biggest issue is that at the time of the vote, nobody had any idea of what Brexit actually meant. The leave campaign could literally promise anything and a) they wouldn’t have to deliver it and b) everyone who voted for Brexit can reasonably suggest that they voted for something other than what was actually delivered.

The best you can say about the Brexit vote is that 51% wanted something other than the status quo.


>It's like it has no conception

This is the point.


It's an empty point and a boring one and leads nowhere. It means nothing, but sounds deep. It's so shallow, any taxi driver and sociologist can come up with it and has, already in December 2022.


>It's an empty point and a boring one and leads nowhere.

But, is it true?

>It means nothing...shallow...

Ironically, the entirety of your comment just repeats that the GP comment means nothing. There is no further explanation or "depth".


Yours added no depth either.


It’s very much not a console.


They didn’t. They went to ngrok and asked for all the data at the point of signup. They then looked to find the any of that data at the second site. In this case they had two identical data points - the GDID and the IP address.


What do you mean? The FBI could know that this VPN ip visited ngrok and then the retailer website, but how would it know that that ip was associated with the specific GDID unless microsoft was tracking (timestamp,website,gdid) tuples?


Probably Windows constantly pings the MS server and they record those tuples.


Why do you think this comment is helpful?


No.


“You didn’t write it, why should I read it?”

Seems like a perfectly reasonable stance.


It wasn’t slavery as they were paid and could be expected to be discharged at the cessation of hostilities.

Conscription is as old as society itself.


> It wasn’t slavery as they were paid

Being paid some amount of money doesn't magically make it not slavery. Obvious counterpoint: what if a plantation owner "paid" each slave a single modern-day penny a year, would that make it okay?

> and could be expected to be discharged at the cessation of hostilities

Being let go when you're no longer needed doesn't stop it being slavery either. Would you no longer be a slave if the plantation owner released you after the harvest season? You'd just be re-captured for the next harvest, of course - either by the same owner or a different one.

> Conscription is as old as society itself.

So is slavery. That doesn't make it okay.

Definitions of forced labour, like the ILO Forced Labour Convention of 1930 for example, have to explicitly include "by the way, it's totally okay if it is done as part of mandatory military service" clauses for a reason.

There are obviously differences between traditional slavery and conscription, but conscription is still way closer to forced labour than it is to consensual service. Just look at what happens when you try to leave, for one!


Last slave was freed in the USA in 1973. Slave masters kept charging for anything and racking up the debt, so they'd never be free


You're both right. We don't want to water down the term "slavery" by using it for draftees, but it is a form of temporary slavery. Slave's have always been "paid" in the form of room and board (however meager), but it's still slavery.


I mean, to be fair, so is slavery.

I think it's important to acknowledge that conscription is a violation of human rights, and absolutely a violation of human autonomy and dignity.

The reason it exists is because historically, the primary source of military power has been the number of armed humans you can put on the battlefield. That's much less true now, but even in WWII the technology wasn't yet up to that point.

And while the US did not end up being materially at risk in WWII (aside from some very small exceptions like Pearl Harbor), that was not a guarantee going in. The Nazis were hellbent on wiping out all opposition to them, and the fear that, if Europe was lost, they would cross the ocean to attack us was not at all crazy. Furthermore, our allies absolutely were under existential threat—and in such a situation, it's frankly irresponsible of a nation not to use conscription if that's actually likely to make a difference.

Either saying "conscription is slavery, therefore it is never justifiable" or "conscription is nothing like slavery, soldiers get treated well" ignores enough of the truth that they're misleading at best. Sometimes you really do have to deal with nuance.


Conscription for wars fought for political purposes is qualitatively different from conscription to defend your country. (But this is a continuum rather than two disjoint categories.) The former happens when the ambitions of the leaders exceed the capabilities of the state. The latter is based on the view that a country is a collective of its citizens, and the citizens are therefore personally responsible for defending it.


You have the option to emigrate as opposed to fight, which is fundamentally what differentiates conscription from slavery (and human rights violations). You're not legally obligated to stay in your country.


Um...what?

Desertion has, historically, been a capital crime. Trying to paint conscription as not being a kind of captivity because "you're not legally obligated to stay in your country" is at best wildly disingenuous, and at worst just flat-out wrong.

I think you might need to take quite a bit more time to consider this issue, lest you prove your username much truer than you probably want.


> Desertion has, historically, been a capital crime.

And it remained so for the US in WW2, although the sentence was carried out just once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

Major General Norman "Dutch" Cota, who was at the execution, called it "the toughest 15 minutes of his life". For context, Cota was also present at the bloodbath on Omaha Beach, where he famously rallied troops.


You can absolutely emigrate prior to the conscription coming to fruition. It has to be permanent, or it's draft evasion, but it is perfectly legal.

Sorry for the edits confusing things. I can see earlier how you thought I meant desertion as opposed to emigration.


Most people do not have the ability to emigrate. Hell, a great many people barely have the economic ability to move across their own state, but emigration requires that the country you're trying to move to is willing to let you live and work there permanently. I don't know if you're familiar with the difficulties involved in this, but I can assure you they are significant.

Dismissing the loss of freedom inherent in conscription by saying you can avoid it by abandoning your entire life, leaving your country, your job, probably your family behind...even if you do have both the money and a legal path to immigrate somewhere else, which, again, most people do not, that's hardly a reasonable alternative.


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

Search: