6 ms·

Did you read the article? US is alleging Huawei was shipping "U.S.-origin" products to Iran - probably U.S. made components for Huawei devices/technology. What

Did you read the article? US is alleging Huawei was shipping "U.S.-origin" products to Iran - probably U.S. made components for Huawei devices/technology. What "authority" do you need to ask for a favor from a friendly ally? Canada also has active economic sanctions against Iran.

amingilani 8y ago
Hi there, just want to remind you of the HN guidelines: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." I'm sure you forgot. We all make mistakes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- janzij 8y ago
  Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read the HN guidelines.
  - amingilani 8y ago
    I'm not sure if you're joking, but in case you're serious: I'm not :) I'm merely reminding. People forget lists of rules written in pages they don't frequently visit. It's no big deal. Fun fact, though: the guidelines say nothing about telling people to read the guidelines themselves ;)
    - cwkoss 8y ago
      I can't tell you about the other set of guidelines that prohibit mention of themselves.... oops.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jchw 8y ago
  I have mixed feelings about this rule because it genuinely feels like the majority of comments come from people who aren't reading most of the article. For example, this article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805 ...is just dominated by people that didn't read to the end. The top complaint is treating the article as if it isn't facetious (it is.) That does get very frustrating. I understand the premise of the rule, though.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    "The article mentions that ..." accomplishes the goal of calling out poor comments while taking the high road.
    - jchw 8y ago
      Sure, and I think that works here. But what do you say when the entire comment doesn't make any sense because it was formed from an incorrect view of what the article was really about, like in the example I linked? I guess "do nothing" is the option I choose, still frustrating.
      - setr 8y ago
        Reply & Deny, or Downvote and move on. I think the more important question is: if someone is talking out of their ass, is it worth continuing to talk to them? In RL, other factors may apply, but in a forum like this...? Unless ofc you end up with an interesting response anyways ;) (note: did you read tfa does not constitute interesting unless your standards are disturbingly low). Imo the minimum is a good backhanded insult thrown in
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - gowld 8y ago
    The overlooked piece wasn't at the end. It was after the end, hidden behind a little quiz. Sarcasm is annoying, and prone to misinterpretation. That's not the fault of the reader who took the author at face value.
frabbit 8y ago
But Iran is a sovereign nation, bravely resisting US/Israeli attempts to turn the entire Middle East into a flaming hell pit. Surely Canada should have told them to go and take a flying leap?
- largehotcoffee 8y ago
  >bravely resisting
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  Canada has a sizable stake in the oil economy too, thus they also profit from US shenanigans. It's just easier to sit on the sidelines and let the US throw resources at that dumpster fire and than going and doing it themselves.
  - frabbit 8y ago
    Canada's oil interests are opposed to the US's. The whole Trans Mountain pipeline was intended to export Canadian tar-sands oil to the swelling Chinese economy before fossil fuel exports have to be stopped.
samstave 8y ago
I wonder if the type of component used even matters. What if the us origin component was a plastic bezel, a screw or some peice of sheet metal in the chassis...
- khuey 8y ago
  In this case it was (allegedly) HP computer equipment. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-huawei-skycom/exclusive-huawei-cfo-linked-to-firm-that-offered-hp-gear-to-iran-idUKBRE90U0CA20130131 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-huawei-skycom/exclusive-h...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

amingilani 8y ago

Hi there, just want to remind you of the HN guidelines: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." I'm sure you forgot. We all make mistakes.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
janzij 8y ago
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read the HN guidelines.
- amingilani 8y ago
  I'm not sure if you're joking, but in case you're serious: I'm not :) I'm merely reminding. People forget lists of rules written in pages they don't frequently visit. It's no big deal. Fun fact, though: the guidelines say nothing about telling people to read the guidelines themselves ;)
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    I can't tell you about the other set of guidelines that prohibit mention of themselves.... oops.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jchw 8y ago
I have mixed feelings about this rule because it genuinely feels like the majority of comments come from people who aren't reading most of the article. For example, this article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805 ...is just dominated by people that didn't read to the end. The top complaint is treating the article as if it isn't facetious (it is.) That does get very frustrating. I understand the premise of the rule, though.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  "The article mentions that ..." accomplishes the goal of calling out poor comments while taking the high road.
  - jchw 8y ago
    Sure, and I think that works here. But what do you say when the entire comment doesn't make any sense because it was formed from an incorrect view of what the article was really about, like in the example I linked? I guess "do nothing" is the option I choose, still frustrating.
    - setr 8y ago
      Reply & Deny, or Downvote and move on. I think the more important question is: if someone is talking out of their ass, is it worth continuing to talk to them? In RL, other factors may apply, but in a forum like this...? Unless ofc you end up with an interesting response anyways ;) (note: did you read tfa does not constitute interesting unless your standards are disturbingly low). Imo the minimum is a good backhanded insult thrown in
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- gowld 8y ago
  The overlooked piece wasn't at the end. It was after the end, hidden behind a little quiz. Sarcasm is annoying, and prone to misinterpretation. That's not the fault of the reader who took the author at face value.

frabbit 8y ago

But Iran is a sovereign nation, bravely resisting US/Israeli attempts to turn the entire Middle East into a flaming hell pit. Surely Canada should have told them to go and take a flying leap?

largehotcoffee 8y ago
>bravely resisting
tomatotomato37 8y ago
Canada has a sizable stake in the oil economy too, thus they also profit from US shenanigans. It's just easier to sit on the sidelines and let the US throw resources at that dumpster fire and than going and doing it themselves.
- frabbit 8y ago
  Canada's oil interests are opposed to the US's. The whole Trans Mountain pipeline was intended to export Canadian tar-sands oil to the swelling Chinese economy before fossil fuel exports have to be stopped.

samstave 8y ago

I wonder if the type of component used even matters. What if the us origin component was a plastic bezel, a screw or some peice of sheet metal in the chassis...

khuey 8y ago
In this case it was (allegedly) HP computer equipment. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-huawei-skycom/exclusive-huawei-cfo-linked-to-firm-that-offered-hp-gear-to-iran-idUKBRE90U0CA20130131 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-huawei-skycom/exclusive-h...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]