I actually do think that whoever becomes the next president has huge implications for all tech companies in the US and even abroad. E.g. the whole issue of AI regulation, UBI in case we get to AGI / SI soon, all sorts of tax issues etc. depend on it, not to mention that the president appoints a lot of judges...
US politics is intimately connected to technology.
1. This election will play a big part in what regulation is imposed on AI. The Democrats are more in favor of ethical and privacy limits on AI. The Republicans see AI as a crucial technology for the US to maintain military superiority and want to see a pretty much anything goes approach to get there.
2. There are similar large differences in how the parties approach privacy in general.
3. One of the common areas of technology discussed on HN is EVs. One party wants to encourage adoption of EVs. The other wants to discourage that--their VP candidate says EVs are a scam wants to cancel EV tax credits and give a $7500 tax credit for purchasing ICE vehicles.
4. They are also very far apart on areas of business law that massively affect technology companies, such as antitrust.
I'm glad to have read it here, it's newsworthy to me, but I don't think the discussion would be worthy. Maybe it'd be nice to have those two be disconnected.
That's not how flagging works. If enough users flag a story, it's automatically killed, not killed by moderators. The active moderation tends to be suppressing the flagging on some amount of controversial stuff.
In the mean time, there are new posts about this same subject appearing on HN which are not flagged, linking to CNN, NYT etc.
But the very first post, linking to the primary source, was flagged. Seems unfair to me.
You've now had multiple people respond to you about your post, all trying (in vain, it seems) to help you understand where the initial confusion occurred, and you continue to either willfully misunderstand, or maybe it's some ESL thing? Or maybe you're just a bored troll? I don't know. Either way, not going to continue responding.
Are you being daft? You arrogantly told someone to “read the policy”, presuming they haven’t. And you stated that general politics are not allowed under the submissions policy. I’m pointing out that this is far from general. I think I’ve been quite clear.
>And you stated that general politics are not allowed under the submissions policy.
It's what the policy says. There's on-topic and off-topic with exceptions. Blanket statements about what "good hackers find interesting" is a partial representation of the policy.
> I’m pointing out that this is far from general.
Going back to you NOT answering my question, I'm not saying this is "general" either.
Generally discussion works best around here when each participant only has to explain their own points. If people have to explain your own points to you it makes discussion kind of hard.
And making points for someone else that they didn't make is also not productive for "discussion work[ing] best."
Explaining that the HN Guidelines has off-topic railings (with exceptions) too isn't saying that a tweet about POTUS resigning isn't a valid exception.
I guess people are on tilt because of the announcement.
