If someone takes a bunch of hostages then we need people who can de-escalate and rescue them, but that isn't what most cops spend their time doing every day.
How do you ensure that all of your AUR packages are up-to-date? The makepkg workflow makes installation easy but I didn't update my AUR packages very consistently until I used a helper.
> Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective
This is a blatant misrepresentation. The tweet talked about "race riots" and Democrat election results. Many people would argue that the point of direct action is not to sway electoral votes toward the Democratic party.
Nitpick: It depends on what "over one hundred billions" means. You could only give $1 to 1 billion people of you have $101 billion, but if you have $999 billion then you could give $998 to 1 billion people without violating the digit constraint.
My guess is that it's closer to your estimate, about 1 day of wages, but it could be 2.7 years of wages at most.
I've seen people get offended by celebrities with insensitive takes, but I've never seen anyone on HN get cancelled because of a comment. The worst I've seen is "this is wrong and here's why" or "I don't want to talk to you".
Generally I've seen people reach for "cancel culture" when:
1. Fear-mongering the left over perceived injustice.
2. Defending bad takes by tone-policing any disagreement.
Can you point to a comment by john_moscow where they've been 'cancelled'? Or maybe a comment by you?
Are you linking to "a politically organized body of people under a single government" or "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language"?
I agree that the assertion was at the beginning of the article, but I don't think the remainder of the article is predicated on this claim. In other words: I don't think the order of magnitude invalidates the rest of their argument.
It's a shame that you're being downvoted for this, but I suppose that's the only tool these people have since they can't argue against your position any other way.
> the message it would send to current and future customers
What exactly is that message? Maybe:
"If you make your money by separating families, putting kids in cages, and deporting asylum-seekers to places where they're in danger, then we don't want your money."
> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy.
It really isn't. Private institutions are under no obligation to collaborate with public agencies unless explicitly required by the Defense Production Act[0]. Please remember that the government is meant to serve us, not the other way around.