4 ms·

Since you want to keep flogging a dead horse topic, I'll respond one last time. I think it is absurd for you to say that the Economist article was "biased in i

by credo 16y ago

Since you want to keep flogging a dead horse topic, I'll respond one last time. I think it is absurd for you to say that the Economist article was "biased in interest towards hackers because people can argue about how to change the laws, or the meting out of punishments - hacking justice" and then turn around and say that the NYT article about Israeli law is of "not specifically biased towards hackers" As for your claim that there is no chance of "hacking the politics of the Middle East", the NY article was focused on one specific law and it appears that "hacking" (to use the term you'd like for the Economist article) has already been effective on that specific law. To me, you're applying different standards to the two articles about the two laws and that indicates a bias for one topic over the other. That is fine. It appears that you reject the notion of having any bias and that is also fine by me. As for where you live or what passport you have, I really don't care about that either. So quit your defensive posturing and don't make an issue over your nationality.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
Perhaps I've simply mis-understood you - I'd be pleased to discover that's the case. However, when you said: > Using the "not about startups, not about .." argument > for the NYT post about Israel, but not for the hugely > popular Economist post about America illustrates your > own bias ... it sounds a lot like you think I'm biased because one article is about Israel and the other is about America. That reading makes it sound like you think I'm biased against Israel and in favor of America, and so it is you that has brought up the question of nationalities and allegiances. That accusation is unjust - hence my reply. If this was not your intention then I'm pleased, although that does confuse me as to what bias you thought you saw. As to the suitability of either article for HN - both should be of interest to any intelligent person who cares about the real world, and both are marginal as to being of relevance to "Hacker News." I personally have more chance of thinking about and understanding the justice system than I have of understanding the specifics of a particular religion, even though I am interested in and following that issue as best I can. My reading of each article leaves me thinking that the question of the law and prisoners is more open to hacking than the interaction between a specific religion and the politics of the state that is so tightly tied to them. You may think that's absurd, and I respect that opinion while, obviously, disagreeing with it. And I will say no more on the subject.

by credo 16y ago

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

Perhaps I've simply mis-understood you - I'd be pleased to discover that's the case. However, when you said: > Using the "not about startups, not about .." argument > for the NYT post about Israel, but not for the hugely > popular Economist post about America illustrates your > own bias ... it sounds a lot like you think I'm biased because one article is about Israel and the other is about America. That reading makes it sound like you think I'm biased against Israel and in favor of America, and so it is you that has brought up the question of nationalities and allegiances. That accusation is unjust - hence my reply. If this was not your intention then I'm pleased, although that does confuse me as to what bias you thought you saw. As to the suitability of either article for HN - both should be of interest to any intelligent person who cares about the real world, and both are marginal as to being of relevance to "Hacker News." I personally have more chance of thinking about and understanding the justice system than I have of understanding the specifics of a particular religion, even though I am interested in and following that issue as best I can. My reading of each article leaves me thinking that the question of the law and prisoners is more open to hacking than the interaction between a specific religion and the politics of the state that is so tightly tied to them. You may think that's absurd, and I respect that opinion while, obviously, disagreeing with it. And I will say no more on the subject.