5 ms·

This comment seems in bad faith. I think it’s pretty clear this conversation wasn’t about killing civilians so the comment about “whatever necessary” probably w

This comment seems in bad faith. I think it’s pretty clear this conversation wasn’t about killing civilians so the comment about “whatever necessary” probably wasn’t intended to include violations of the Geneva convention. Just saying.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago
It’s not clear considering that the US has been engaging in various military conflicts of dubious legitimacy to keep its status for many years.
- ncphil 4y ago
  At least they "think" that they're maintaining their status. Check back at mid-century when things _really_ start to fall apart and see where the US and those who control it are.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
'Whatever it needs' is fairly unambiguous language and including violence in that is not a particularly unpopular viewpoint in recent history.
- blitz_skull 4y ago
  “Whatever” is by definition ambiguous. It might include violence, sure, but when the comment specifically mentioned data and the actual content at hand several times, it can be pretty safely concluded that it doesn’t include violence.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    I mean, we have a number of examples of governments using this data to do anything from harassing to imprisoning or even assassinating dissidents. So even saying "just" access to data is what you're defending doesn't really address the fact that data is often used for oppressive and violent ends.
  - Kaze404 4y ago
    I think it’s pretty safe to say that “whatever it needs” at the very least includes things the country is already doing, and violence is definitely in that list. Both internally and externally.
stevenjgarner 4y ago
Personally I find it rewarding how the accuracy of language matters here on HN. Initially when someone voted down one of my comments I was all butt-hurt. Then I got to realizing how justified the down-vote was as I was being lazy with my use of language - I was not actually saying what I really meant. Slowly it helped me think first then write what I actually meant. Still not perfect, but so much more intentional. After all, many of us here on HN are coders of one sort or another, where the accuracy of (computer) language is all too important. It should matter no less how accurately we talk with one another?

LudwigNagasena 4y ago

It’s not clear considering that the US has been engaging in various military conflicts of dubious legitimacy to keep its status for many years.

ncphil 4y ago
At least they "think" that they're maintaining their status. Check back at mid-century when things _really_ start to fall apart and see where the US and those who control it are.

bigDinosaur 4y ago

'Whatever it needs' is fairly unambiguous language and including violence in that is not a particularly unpopular viewpoint in recent history.

blitz_skull 4y ago
“Whatever” is by definition ambiguous. It might include violence, sure, but when the comment specifically mentioned data and the actual content at hand several times, it can be pretty safely concluded that it doesn’t include violence.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  I mean, we have a number of examples of governments using this data to do anything from harassing to imprisoning or even assassinating dissidents. So even saying "just" access to data is what you're defending doesn't really address the fact that data is often used for oppressive and violent ends.
- Kaze404 4y ago
  I think it’s pretty safe to say that “whatever it needs” at the very least includes things the country is already doing, and violence is definitely in that list. Both internally and externally.

stevenjgarner 4y ago

Personally I find it rewarding how the accuracy of language matters here on HN. Initially when someone voted down one of my comments I was all butt-hurt. Then I got to realizing how justified the down-vote was as I was being lazy with my use of language - I was not actually saying what I really meant. Slowly it helped me think first then write what I actually meant. Still not perfect, but so much more intentional. After all, many of us here on HN are coders of one sort or another, where the accuracy of (computer) language is all too important. It should matter no less how accurately we talk with one another?