> then wouldn't they want to spread the info and blame it on the "dirty illegals" or whatever?
pretty sure the ideology is to remove every social safety net and service to "prove" government doesn't work and then the robber barons can swoop in and make it a paid service... and make it so the capital class gets to make and save more money as they can afford to buy any of those services that were cut. it's basically vulture economics but at the nation scale. it's not great.
This isn't really an urgent "alert" system per se, more of a knowledge dissemination system. Security postmortems more so than critical security patches.
We have good reason to believe it'd show up here given that Kansas's TB situation has had multiple bulletins over the years
The analogy breaks down in that rate of infection of a disease is historical but very much informs ongoing public health measures that should be taken.
One might conclude, given how closely the current administration has been following the project 2025 plan that was floating around, that the administration paused functions pending ideological purity checks on key personnel.
Read the data. There are many more latent cases recorded, and current new cases are not all recorded as the tally lags people sick right now.
You keep quoting that part and ignoring the rest of the article and the live data sources linked to it. The text of the article likely wasn’t from yesterday, as the reporter likely went around a week or two, gathered quotes, interviews, then spent some time in editorial revisions.
Maybe you can link to whatever data you're looking at. The article says one new active case and that the overall number of cases, including latent, are trending down. This is still consistent with this being a bigger deal last year than this year. The KS health data still shows 1 active for this year.
This goes way past teams bud. If you don't realize the kind of existential threat trump is posing to millions of people, you haven't paid attention to a single thing he's done since taking office.
Maybe the political climate is impacting a higher number of topical points that are being discussed on HN. When governments are changing, interfering, and impacting technology you're going to see it crop up more.
It's not a "rough start for HN", it's the current climate of the world through the lens of the US.
> The political commentary is infecting every thread.
Unfortunately politics has infected areas of our lives we took for granted. The stopping of reporting coming out of the CDC/NIH/HHS makes discussing health science articles more challenging. And this is a direct result of the new administration. While this article may not be vaccine related, the new administration wants a known anti-vaxxer to lead the HHS.
I would argue that being rabidly apolitical while a dangerous threat to western democracy has been growing in America for years is the rough part.
I'm an old person. I have a leftist bent. I used to get along with many conservatives, I just had different policy viewpoints than they did. What we are seeing now is a completely different political landscape where one of the parties is actively setting up a dynastic plutocracy in the open.
FWIW I have a ton of criticism for the "other" party too as an ineffective mess sucking the corporate teet almost as hard, just without the actual proto fascism.
Some yes, but maybe not you? Because you used the following language yesterday:
"Only a few short months ago, I was under constant attack from various public members of the Democratic party for being a white male with center-right views. The vitriol was quite unhinged, really." when asked for specifics you went to '...on CNN for example'.
* edit: I mean for use as ammunition in an argument. It's not that you're wrong—it's just that the cost (to the intended spirit of the site) outweighs the benefit (being right in an argument).
TBH this idea that each comment should stand individually on its (including HN's downplaying of the usernym with grey) seems like it contributes to some of the problems with modern discourse. When someone I know says something challenging, I know the context they're coming from, what I do agree with them on, what skills of theirs I respect, etc. Whereas message board comments are just tiny slivers of information with which you can agree or disagree.
Oh for sure. There's nothing wrong with people getting to know each other, and their views, by reading through past comments.
It's just not in the intended spirit of HN to track down contradictions and use them as gotchas in arguments. That's a narrower point. I've added an edit to the GP comment to clarify that.
Do I engage in politics on HN occasionally? Yes. Is it my primary motivation? No. I don't open up HN with the intention of having rigorous political discussions, even though I sometimes fall into them.
My comment history, which it seems you only partially perused, demonstrates this to be true. Especially if you go back a year ago before things became politically charged around here.
I also don't see what relevance my example has to this conversation. It sounds like you're trying to corner me into a specific label (Republican, maybe?). I guess thanks for proving my point about discussions around here?
I haven't used party labels on HN. You seem to be the one forcing an identity on me? I would respond but my post was out of bounds so I shouldn't elaborate/reference further.
FYI if you read my post history you will see I am a libertarian leaning (Santa Cruz hippie libertarian not Rand Paul 'my dad got me the job but I believe in everyone earning their way' libertarian) refugee from the Bay Area to a small town in a very red state. I don't have the agenda you think other than calling out hypocrisy and a desire for a functioning health system.
If the ideology was what you're saying, then wouldn't they want to spread the info and blame it on the "dirty illegals" or whatever?