5 ms·

> but that doesn't mean that they're unfounded Yes, yes it does. The very definition of unfounded is having no foundation or basis in facts. That's some "stole

> but that doesn't mean that they're unfounded Yes, yes it does. The very definition of unfounded is having no foundation or basis in facts. That's some "stolen election"-level logic.

blumomo 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- karmajunkie 4y ago
  - blumomo 4y ago
    - tomnipotent 4y ago
      > You let others do the fact check for you? Isn't that exactly what you did when you recommended the documentary? I'm willing to wager the Reuters fact checking article went through more scrutiny than the documentary.
    - connordoner 4y ago
      But that isn’t the source, is it? That’s a movie which is hardly reflective of reality. That said, you do have to let others — Full Fact, for example — do fact checking for you. You can never know everything in enough detail to fact-check it, and it’s foolish to think otherwise.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > Continue outsourcing instead of watching the source yourself. I've seen the movie, and I've read the fact checks. Even before reading them though I noticed multiple flaws and problems while watching. If you still think that movie is credible as evidence of wide-scale election fraud I recommend you brush up on your critical thinking skills. If you've already learned how to spot weak arguments and manipulations, maybe you're just out of practice. Personally, I recommend consuming a lot of content that advocates for positions you strongly disagree with. You'll find that you can't help but nitpick every weak argument. Do that enough, and you'll find you won't be able to stop spotting problems with bad arguments no matter how much you agree with the underlying message or where it's coming from.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        autoexec 4y ago
        > Any "fact checkers" get that one right and call it out for what it was? Well, yeah, there were fact checkers there too. https://apnews.com/173eed4c59dd48a78cfc4376255461d1 https://apnews.com/173eed4c59dd48a78cfc4376255461d1 https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trump-no-collusion/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trump-no-collusion/ > Did you find some good content that advocated for positions you disagreed with on that topic? I read a lot of stories and commentary around that time from across the political spectrum, but this wasn't something I had very firm positions on beyond "Russia very likely did attempt to interfere with the election". I believed (and still do) that there was enough evidence to justify the investigation into Russian interference in the election and what role Trump and his campaign had in that, but yeah, there were a lot of accusations flying around, presented as fact, well before the reports were out and I do disagree with that. Since the investigations didn't find that there was no collusion, only that there was not enough evidence for criminal charges the situation hasn't improved much either. There are still folks who claim Trump was proved innocent of any collusion which is inaccurate and those who say the evidence uncovered only supports the accusation that collusion occurred which might be true, but doesn't change the fact that even in total it doesn't amount to anything strong enough for charges. "Innocent until proven guilty" means that Trump isn't guilty of criminal conspiracy.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        The fact checks are very biased and can't bring themselves to state the known facts without bringing up other unrelated things ("Trump claims he didn't collude with Putin but people who are not Trump were indicted for things that were not colluding with Putin to hack the election"), etc. Mueller's report does, in fact, say explicitly that they did not find evidence that Trump or anyone in his campaign "colluded" (conspired) to interfere with the election. The report is public you can see that stated plainly. The "fact" checkers also skirted around the problem that conspiracy theorists from the Clinton campaign and DNC operatives like Schiff knowingly lied and peddled dangerous misinformation to subvert democracy ("ample evidence"). Funny they omitted this relevant detail entirely and yet they thought it was appropriate to go off on tangential topics that were not related to the charges of conspiring to interfere in the election. All goes to show you can't trust fact checkers just because they call themselves fact checkers. > I believed (and still do) that there was enough evidence to justify the investigation into Russian interference in the election and what role Trump and his campaign had in that What evidence? There never was any that wasn't fabricated. When I've asked people this they've been reduced to pointing to Trump's "Russia if you're listening" which was an obvious joke.
quantum_magpie 4y ago
But the foundation is there: Microsoft has multiple decade track record of shady shit. There is no evidence, though. :(
Beldin 4y ago
An unwillingness to update a webpage as well as refusing to do bare maintenance for years is astounding. It could have been an unintentional oversight, until the 2020 letter by LibreOffice. (Yes that was not the first to comment). As far as I know, there hasn't been a change - not even an acknowledgement of the letter. It's been long enough; this is not unintentional and the lack of any response for so long has gone beyond what can be excused by a slow-moving bureaucracy. Moreover, updating the site to acknowledge that the project isn't updated is trivial, truthful, and needful for its users. Therefore that is a more than reasonable expectation for an app with its recognition - even if there were no other competing apps. But nope, nothing.
- tomnipotent 4y ago
  What does Microsoft have to do with this?
  - Beldin 4y ago
    I was addressing your analogy to "stolen election". At any rate, I'm just pointing out that (1) any decent project would address this situation once they were aware of it, (2) Apache is aware of it, and (3) they had way, way more than enough time to at least acknowledge the issue. Neither ignorance nor bureaucratic slowness can excuse their complete lack of taking any action to protect their users. If you exclude ignorance and slowness as reasons, this is intentional. I don't know why, but the fact that something is actually wrong on a significant scale and is intentional in no way matches "stolen election logic".
dang 4y ago
We detached this flamewar subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31840457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31840457 and marked it off topic.

> but that doesn't mean that they're unfounded Yes, yes it does. The very definition of unfounded is having no foundation or basis in facts. That's some "stolen election"-level logic.

blumomo 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
karmajunkie 4y ago
- blumomo 4y ago
  - tomnipotent 4y ago
    > You let others do the fact check for you? Isn't that exactly what you did when you recommended the documentary? I'm willing to wager the Reuters fact checking article went through more scrutiny than the documentary.
  - connordoner 4y ago
    But that isn’t the source, is it? That’s a movie which is hardly reflective of reality. That said, you do have to let others — Full Fact, for example — do fact checking for you. You can never know everything in enough detail to fact-check it, and it’s foolish to think otherwise.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > Continue outsourcing instead of watching the source yourself. I've seen the movie, and I've read the fact checks. Even before reading them though I noticed multiple flaws and problems while watching. If you still think that movie is credible as evidence of wide-scale election fraud I recommend you brush up on your critical thinking skills. If you've already learned how to spot weak arguments and manipulations, maybe you're just out of practice. Personally, I recommend consuming a lot of content that advocates for positions you strongly disagree with. You'll find that you can't help but nitpick every weak argument. Do that enough, and you'll find you won't be able to stop spotting problems with bad arguments no matter how much you agree with the underlying message or where it's coming from.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      - autoexec 4y ago
        > Any "fact checkers" get that one right and call it out for what it was? Well, yeah, there were fact checkers there too. https://apnews.com/173eed4c59dd48a78cfc4376255461d1 https://apnews.com/173eed4c59dd48a78cfc4376255461d1 https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trump-no-collusion/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trump-no-collusion/ > Did you find some good content that advocated for positions you disagreed with on that topic? I read a lot of stories and commentary around that time from across the political spectrum, but this wasn't something I had very firm positions on beyond "Russia very likely did attempt to interfere with the election". I believed (and still do) that there was enough evidence to justify the investigation into Russian interference in the election and what role Trump and his campaign had in that, but yeah, there were a lot of accusations flying around, presented as fact, well before the reports were out and I do disagree with that. Since the investigations didn't find that there was no collusion, only that there was not enough evidence for criminal charges the situation hasn't improved much either. There are still folks who claim Trump was proved innocent of any collusion which is inaccurate and those who say the evidence uncovered only supports the accusation that collusion occurred which might be true, but doesn't change the fact that even in total it doesn't amount to anything strong enough for charges. "Innocent until proven guilty" means that Trump isn't guilty of criminal conspiracy.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        The fact checks are very biased and can't bring themselves to state the known facts without bringing up other unrelated things ("Trump claims he didn't collude with Putin but people who are not Trump were indicted for things that were not colluding with Putin to hack the election"), etc. Mueller's report does, in fact, say explicitly that they did not find evidence that Trump or anyone in his campaign "colluded" (conspired) to interfere with the election. The report is public you can see that stated plainly. The "fact" checkers also skirted around the problem that conspiracy theorists from the Clinton campaign and DNC operatives like Schiff knowingly lied and peddled dangerous misinformation to subvert democracy ("ample evidence"). Funny they omitted this relevant detail entirely and yet they thought it was appropriate to go off on tangential topics that were not related to the charges of conspiring to interfere in the election. All goes to show you can't trust fact checkers just because they call themselves fact checkers. > I believed (and still do) that there was enough evidence to justify the investigation into Russian interference in the election and what role Trump and his campaign had in that What evidence? There never was any that wasn't fabricated. When I've asked people this they've been reduced to pointing to Trump's "Russia if you're listening" which was an obvious joke.

quantum_magpie 4y ago

But the foundation is there: Microsoft has multiple decade track record of shady shit. There is no evidence, though. :(

Beldin 4y ago

An unwillingness to update a webpage as well as refusing to do bare maintenance for years is astounding. It could have been an unintentional oversight, until the 2020 letter by LibreOffice. (Yes that was not the first to comment). As far as I know, there hasn't been a change - not even an acknowledgement of the letter. It's been long enough; this is not unintentional and the lack of any response for so long has gone beyond what can be excused by a slow-moving bureaucracy. Moreover, updating the site to acknowledge that the project isn't updated is trivial, truthful, and needful for its users. Therefore that is a more than reasonable expectation for an app with its recognition - even if there were no other competing apps. But nope, nothing.

tomnipotent 4y ago
What does Microsoft have to do with this?
- Beldin 4y ago
  I was addressing your analogy to "stolen election". At any rate, I'm just pointing out that (1) any decent project would address this situation once they were aware of it, (2) Apache is aware of it, and (3) they had way, way more than enough time to at least acknowledge the issue. Neither ignorance nor bureaucratic slowness can excuse their complete lack of taking any action to protect their users. If you exclude ignorance and slowness as reasons, this is intentional. I don't know why, but the fact that something is actually wrong on a significant scale and is intentional in no way matches "stolen election logic".

dang 4y ago

We detached this flamewar subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31840457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31840457 and marked it off topic.