This is fun to watch. The most evil company I can think of is being exposed for its core purpose. Are people going to realize what a monster Facebook is?
No, Americans will continue to give zero fucks. A few more people will be outraged, but business as usual will continue. Maybe Facebook will claim they "fixed" the problem that created this "breach" (as it's being called), but nothing will change
>"No, Americans will continue to give zero fucks."
You realize theres 2 billion people on FB but only 330 million people in the US right? That's many more people than just Americans giving "zero fucks."
Not if you believe that there is a 1-to-1 relationship between Facebook accounts and real, living humans.
I find it more likely that Facebook is completely unwilling to admit that many of its accounts are not genuine representations of a real, living person.
When millions of Americans get their news from Facebook, it's doubtful that many current users will find out what is happening. It is certainly similar to the Fox News effect.
The news feed of a Hacker News frequenter is very atypical. You likely have more friends in the tech industry, and thus you're likely to see posts on this story.
Your comment calls into question the anecdotal evidence used to dismiss a claim made with no evidence whatsoever.
I have a similar anecdote, but mine does not match the mitigating circumstance you ventured.
Regardless, even a less-than-credible personal account clears the bar of required evidence to dismiss the above claim, since that requirement is currently zero.
I downvoted you due to the doublethink of providing an out for good pharma companies to exist, while calling all firearms companies evil. I can see having a problem with IMI or other state funded companies that are a part of a Nation's greater military industrial complex, but on what grounds do you consider Glock or Remington evil?
A pretty obvious distinction is that pharma companies make tools for saving lives, while consumer gun companies make tools for taking lives.
(And yes, I'm aware of the theory that consumer guns are for taking lives in self defense. But in 2012, there were 33,563 gun deaths in the US, only 259 of which were justifiable homicides, so it's at least reasonable to think think that whatever the intent of gun companies, it's not working out like one might hope.)
The main reason for the second amendment is deterring authoritarianism. It works, regardless of force proportion. Occupying Afghanistan was a pain that was ultimately not worthwhile for anyone who tried it.
Regarding self-defense, there is also a benefit in deterrence - look at relative crime rates in the most heavily armed per-capita states.
> The main reason for the second amendment is deterring authoritarianism. It works, regardless of force proportion.
No. It's delusion. In doubt, feds will fuck you over and shoot your corpse when they're done. There is no such thing as stopping the police, short of welding yourself shut in a tank, but you're bound to run out of gas, air or food/water. Or being blown up with an RPG, if you do enough damage.
The only thing that works as a deterrence to authoritarianism is masses - but you really need MASSES, as in hundreds of thousands of people, not a couple hundred neckbeards with guns. Hell, G20 Hamburg was in the upper 5-digit range of protesters with a decent amount of experienced and willing rioters and it got royally screwed. I don't nearly see any protest coming near that range of numbers soon... except, maybe and hopefully, if Trump decides to be a totally ignorant idiot and fires Mueller.
The case for deterring authoritarianism is not G20 protests, it's
(a) groups like Deacons for Defence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justic...) where the presence of weapons serves as a deterrence, or if you want to turn to more grim times,
(b) events like Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising)
where the concentration of weapons counts for forcing an oppressor to suffer casualties instead of just rolling over the unarmed opposition. That is what the quote you are responding to alludes to.
Finally, weapons also serve as deterrent for the out-of-control forces, e.g.
(c) 1992 Los Angeles Riots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots) when the government is not acting directly or indirectly against a group but is simply not acting at all during critical time
All of these has happened before, and all of these will happen again, during our lifetime.
Comparing guns per capita on a small sampling, the top 5 most violent states per one survey are Louisiana (gun ownership: #11), Alaska (gun ownership: #1), Tennessee (gun ownership: #15), Delaware (gun ownership: #51), and Nevada (gun ownership: #16). All over the place, at least so far. Maybe a small bias towards "more guns=more violence per capita", but with such a huge outlier with Delaware, that makes me imagine that the overall data is pretty noisy.
My impression is that there is a much stronger indicator of guns-per-capita: population density. The top 5 guns per capita states are: Alaska (population density: #50), Arkansas (population density: #40), Idaho (population density: #44), West Virginia (population density: #29), Wyoming (population density: #49). Again, somewhat messy, but there seems like a strong bias towards more rural areas.
This makes sense to me. In America, a driving force for many people with guns is less pure self defense and more sport and recreation. Of which the opportunities are quite a bit more readily available in rural areas.
Cars kill people in accidents[1]. Guns are used for this on purpose. By your logic, we should also ban food because it feeds the people using the cars and the guns.
Guns can still be used in the military, nobody ever argued that (vis-a-vis to you comment about Hitler & the russians). And btw, about those russians, they found new ways (tools invented by the americans) to screw with the world, didn't they? How are guns defending us now?
[1] in recent years, terrorists have been using cars to kill people too, but not the same extent.
They manufacture weapons. It's pretty much the most black and white fit for an evil company that can exist. That seems incredibly obvious to the point that I sincerely doubt you had to ask.
1. Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Every year. And while cars can be useful a lot of the driving is more ir less meaningless.
2. While guns might be used for evil they are also used for good: there is no doubt in my mind that our big neighbour to the east (I'm Norwegian) would have invaded a number of European countries during the 50-ies, 60-ies and 70-ies if those countries hadn't been prepared to defend themselves.
Not to detract from what you say (it was interesting, I originally thought cars were much more dangerous in USA as well and I was very wrong) but from what I can see in 2017 cars were back on top.
> Ah yes, expanding my world view that we should encourage school shootings. ... If only we were all so enlightened as Americans
That's not what I said at all (I even offered non-evil usages that occur daily, globally). Twisting words will get you nowhere here on HN (and in fact earns you a flag). Not to mention a dash of xenophobia to go with it doesn't do you any favors.
I won't engage with someone who twists words and groups entire populations together under false pretenses. I'll simply tell you what other users have here:
