Depressingly, HN, or large chunks thereof, seem to lack that foundation. Here we have an institution, the NY Times, cherished by progressive as authoritative,

Depressingly, HN, or large chunks thereof, seem to lack that foundation. Here we have an institution, the NY Times, cherished by progressive as authoritative, in conflict with a technology, cherished by progressives as environmentally crucial. The ensuing debate looks like something out of Orwell. Over an analysis of logs! The problem isn't technological knowledge. It is "liberal" knowledge, knowledge of how we and others form opinions and deal with argument. People underestimate the impact of their political convictions on others' opinions, and their own. That impact goes really, really deep, it actually takes a lot of thought and reading and observation to see how this works. And yet we're routinely treated to debates where people simply state whatever seems obvious to them as "fact" and then respond incoherently to any contradiction. It's truly depressing.