I use Discord in place of Slack for hobby/non-professional projects.
The problem with Discord tbh is I've found it to be less reliable than Slack in terms of uptime/push notifications. It also has fewer devop functions prebuilt which means building them out.
Not a big deal if you are a hobbyist, is a big deal if you are paying people $100+/hr to do it.
Individual actions by individual actors in the US political system were evil. That does not mean US as a whole is evil. Merely that evil people got into power for periods of time.
A country cannot be judged as if it acted with one mind, one body, and one will.
> Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity.
You are confusing Capitalism with foreign policy.
> Why not?
Where do you think all this anti-US violence comes from?
Empires have never fared well once they fell from power with the exception of the British who were geographically isolated and had very powerful allies.
Simply because the bloodshed caused by US foreign policy mostly occurs on foreign soil doesn't mean it will stop just because the US is no longer an empire.
> I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.
The US actively instigated violent revolutions, torture, and abuses in other countries. Pretending that is "part of maintaining global order" is absurd.
The pillars of what the US is credited for is something half the population actively rebels against (globalism, free trade) and were achieved in spite of the popular will domestically.
Simply because I believe a certain technique should be verboten doesn't mean I ignored credit for the US's successes.
While it has happened, the West's free trade and globalist policies are built on the belief that trade greatly reduces the odds of war. The WTO, the UN, the EU, etc. are all built on the idea that strong/fair economic ties reduce the risk of WWI/WWII type conflicts.
> I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it just depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault or concern.
That is the US's rational for doing the same thing, yes.
It doesn't end well. It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution. Installing and/or supporting "friendly leaders" who then push deals that are against the local national interest results in a great deal of hostility in the long run.
The reason the US is hated isn't that the US is evil. It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted. China is repeating that mistake.
> Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft power, and then convert that soft power into harder power.
Practical? Yes. If you are expecting to go to war.
If no war materializes, you've destroyed any chance of popular support in that country indefinitely. China is burning bridges with the native populations in these countries that won't go away in 5 years.
> Not stopping the overthrow of the Shah (and then admitting him to the United States) may have been a mistake because of the hostage crisis that unfolded and also created geopolitical instability that continues to this day.
Fighting to defend a dictator the West effectively installed to suppress a populist movement was unlikely to have a better outcome than the Shah being ousted.
People in the West seem to forget the Iranian Revolution was _extremely_ popular in Iran.
Why was it popular?
Because the Shah was a corrupt and oppressive regime that was hated by the Iranian people. The Iranian Revolution wasn't the first time he was forced out of Iran either.
This delusion that Iran could be "ruled" by the Shah as a positive outcome needs to stop. It isn't borne out by the facts and it would have ended up collapsing eventually. Popular leaders don't need organizations like SAVAK to torture its own people.
> There is no conspiracy and I don't think that it is fair to accuse your police and government of being arseholes (to put words in your mouth!) Sometimes we simply have to accept that our personal will does not always dovetail with that of the majority - that is how democracy works. To be fair though, there is also nothing wrong with getting a good rant in on HN.
You've clearly never dealt with either in the US for a protracted period of time.
Yes, they very much are. Their response to them breaking the law and/or making a mistake is "Fuck off, sue us."
> If you feel really strongly about healthcare, why not emigrate to the UK? Our NHS is bloody amazing and only costs: https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay - roughly 12% of your salary. There is a lower band and an upper band so it is not 12% of everything you earn and it also covers unemployment payments and other things.
A) You are moving the goal posts from the original discussion.
B) I was born here. I'm not leaving just because I don't win every battle.
> Brexit was decided on an embarrassingly close vote: 51.9%
> The four most recent readings - taken by BMG Research and Survation between November and January - have, on average, once the 8% who said "don't know" are left to one side, put Remain on 52% and Leave on 48%.
Now that it isn't being influenced by an outside party, it is no longer narrowly winning.
To be honest, I don't think people should cry they have a mandate from the people with less than a 55% majority.
> At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way?
Law enforcement and government are addicted to power to an unhealthy degree. Convincing people to voluntarily give up power is rarely successful.
You seem to believe majority support is enough to make something happen. It is not.
The Public Option has 75% popular support. Medicare-For-All has 59% popular support.
It isn't that complex and to be 100% honest, once you know how it works, its very easy to test for yourself with extremely consistent results. The bans are more a result of me testing their belief in the first amendment for my own curiosity rather than anything you need to apologize for. I intentionally bait conservatives that claim they are pro-free speech to watch the hypocrisy and to confirm my belief in their dishonesty is correct.
The loophole used to "justify" my bans is almost always:
User who doesn't agree with conservative narrative posts facts viewed as damaging -> Conservatives report you as "spamming" -> powers that be ban you as a "spammer" due to moderation mechanisms based on N reports.
Sometimes it involves human intervention as well, sometimes not.
> PC case maker CaseLabs says it has been 'forced into bankruptcy and liquidation' by US tariffs (Prices went up 80%!) -- Thanks Folks and I await your censorship ban.
I know they are going to do that after I posted that, even included it in the title, and was banned. :)
I was also banned for similar posts on a couple news sites.
-----
Pretty much any major "Conservative" subreddit has banned my account (or another one of my Reddit accounts) at this point. Voat/Gab, I'm banned platform wide.
I'm happy to absolutely no contact with HN/YCombinator/related companies if they do the same. :)