> You want your designers to have accurate color reproduction for obvious reasons
I don't know, I conclude the opposite. If you need accurate color reproduction when you publish online, you are doing something wrong.
I used to co-own a small digital printing business, so I'm aware of what all of it means, and I had an appropriate monitor myself and a paid Adobe Design Suite subscription.
But for the web, when our setup is too good it's actually a detriment. It is predictable that you end up publishing things that require your quality setup. There is a good reason not to bother with a high quality monitor usable for serious publishing and photo/video editing when you only do web thing. Which is exactly why when I bought my last monitor, which is for business work and coding and web browsing and other mundane things, I deliberately ignored all the very high quality displays, even though the company would have paid whatever I chose. It is not an advantage for that use case.
I’ve actually got an MCP server that makes it really easy for Claude to generate key events, wait for changes / wait for stable output / etc, and then take PNG screenshots of the terminal state (including all colors/styling) — which it “views” directly as part of the MCP tool response.
Wish I could open source it; it’s a game changer for TUI development.
Honestly? Good. The outrage firehose is already all pervasive, and Reddit is happy to provide an endless supply of this kind of content, if that's what someone wants to consume.
I agree, but technically-salient articles like this are explicitly on-topic in the HN guidelines. Setting aside the outrage, this is worth discussion from technically-minded individuals.
If topics like this make you too emotional to participate, you can just ignore it. Nobody is forcing you to respond to things that make you upset.
Regardless, I already flag articles like this to hide them from my front page. I sometimes comment because I’d prefer a world where I didn’t have to do that.
Like I said, there are already plenty of sources for this kind of content. We don’t really need HN to be yet another Reddit or Bluesky.
You clearly have an ax to grind with leftists but outrage is a human reaction to something bad happening, it can be perceived on any political spectrum, including right as well. And discussion is the only a good thing even if not everybody agrees, at least we understand where they stand.
There's also the fact that as the audience is heavily composed of tech workers, we're helping to build these systems and should explore what our participation means for us. Hacking humanity and civilization as it were.
Perhaps places have seemingly turned "leftist" because the fascist definition of "leftist" has turned into anyone who doesn't support summary executions of American citizens in the street?
It was shown that rightoid subs have way more censorship and controlled by way fewer people. Reality has a liberal bias, so of course an average subreddit will appear to be "leftist". Of course "leftist" to a rightoid means just not a far-right sub.
> You may not hide behind "It's just a different opinion" when you want to be evil. If you for example want to tell a lie and say that Renee Good was not innocent, then we will permanently ban you. Or if you want to show everyone you're evil and you support Trump's secret police which exists to kidnap innocents and terrorize citizens, then we will permanently ban you.
This is /r/comics, of all places, but this is the norm across Reddit.
Nothing you read on that site is in any way representative of actual public opinion. It is a carefully curated cesspit of manufactured consensus.
I can't really comment on Reddit because I don't spend much time there and when I do it's in technical subs (at the top of my current throwaways: /r/kubota, /r/woodstoving, /r/vorondesign, /r/buildapcsales)
I can't really comment on Bluesky because I don't spend much time there at all. Although every time I view an X link I see a whole bunch of reactionary simplistic not-even-wrong red team comments, so if it's the blue-flavored equivalent of that I can see where you're coming from.
As a libertarian, I personally sit somewhere in the "middle" as I think left and right are fundamentally just ways of thinking about a situation, and if you're not doing both and synthesizing between them then you're only using half of your brain.
So sorry, "summary executions of American citizens in the street" comes from my own analysis of the events of the past few days. If you do not see the situation as an American citizen exercising her first amendment natural right to heckle government agents and then being retaliated at with a high-stakes escalation that led to her being needlessly killed, then you really have no comprehension or appreciation of our country's foundational ideas of individual liberty and limited government.
(As for your edit tone policing about "fascist" that now makes up the bulk of your comment - I am open to referring to your movement by another name, especially if it facilitates having productive discussions where we can flesh out your actual values and their implications. But first you have to come up with an honest label and stop trying to hide behind "conservative" to mask a wildly radical agenda)
> But no sorry, "summary executions of American citizens in the street" comes from my own analysis of the events of the past few days. If you do not see the situation as an American citizen exercising her first amendment natural right to heckle government agents and then being retaliated at with a high-stakes escalation that led to her being needlessly killed, then you really have no comprehension or appreciation of our country's foundational ideas of individual liberty and limited government.
I saw the situation as (1) an American citizen moving far beyond her first amendment rights and into active violence towards and obstruction of law enforcement, (2) refusing a lawful and reasonable order, after an incredible degree of patience and grace extended to her by law enforcement despite her unlawful behavior over days and weeks, and (3) her ill-considered decision to use her vehicle in the manner she did, accelerating towards and hitting a law enforcement officer -- a provocation to which he responded with reasonable force, given the circumstances.
Planting your car perpendicular to the road isn't protected speech, and accelerating into a human while refusing a lawful order especially isn't.
I don't think she intended to hit him, but she accelerated towards him to evade a lawful order, and she did hit him. An SUV is absolutely a deadly weapon, and once acceleration occurs toward an officer:
- The threat becomes imminent
- The decision window collapses to seconds
- De-escalation is no longer a viable option
> I am open to referring to your movement by another name, especially if it facilitates having productive discussions where we can flesh out you actual values and their implications. But first you have to come up with an honest label and stop trying to hide behind "conservative" to mask a wildly radical agenda
I don't have a name for it other than conservative, all of my "political compass" tests place me pretty firmly in the center, and I don't see how actually enforcing immigration law is a "wildly radical" agenda. However, I also think invoking “fascism” here is a category error; modern political movements do not map cleanly onto those early-20th-century categories. There are points of overlap, divergence, borrowing, and recombination across parties and ideologies.
> an American citizen moving far beyond her first amendment rights and into active violence towards and obstruction of law enforcement
Please describe what "active violence" or physical "obstruction" you are specifically referring to, that she was engaging in before the situation escalated. I have seen many allusions to this as if it must be obvious, but never anything concrete. Modulo her political message, what I see is someone being an asshole stopped in the middle of the street and laying on her horn. But these are issues for local PD at best.
> refusing a lawful and reasonable order
I am only aware of an order given to move along, which was questionably unlawful if issued in retaliation for Constitutionally-protected observation and protest. If you want to elaborate on the specific order and what fundamentally necessitated it, I'm open to changing my mind. But what I see is ICE already starting to escalate the situation. At which point the question becomes why it was necessary for them to escalate this situation - we expect government agents to minimize harm in good faith, not to rules-lawyer to increase harm for their own personal reasons.
> after an incredible degree of patience and grace extended to her by law enforcement despite her unlawful behavior over days and weeks
Why I should empathize with the government agents rather than my fellow citizen? "Patience and grace" aren't elective niceties, they're firm requirements of the job. If an agent gets emotionally overwhelmed doing their job, it's time to take a step back and hand off to someone fresh. They unfortunately do not have a mandate from the communities they are working amongst. We have seen how corrosive this dynamic is to the rule of law under the "drug war". I'm sure it makes the job extra tiring, but that is on them to manage rather than taking it out on citizens.
(also that was another reference to "unlawful" behavior without pointing to anything specific)
> accelerating towards and hitting a law enforcement officer -- a provocation to which he responded with reasonable force, given the circumstances
This particular agent had previously fucked around and found out about moving vehicles. In this light, his approach positioning should be viewed as fully deliberate, and his subsequent reaction as pre-planned. Both also deviated significantly from agency procedures.
His alternative was to not box her in with his fleshy body, and if she ended up driving away either open a case and confront/arrest her elsewhere, or just pass the complaint off to local PD. That would be basic straightforward deescalation, so once again the critique of generally minimizing harm applies.
> I don't see how actually enforcing immigration law is a "wildly radical" agenda
I didn't claim that it was, and I personally have no problem enforcing immigration law in a just, equitable, and humane manner. The problem is the manner in which it is being enforced. This manner is so far outside acceptable government activity in a society based around individual liberty and limited government, that it makes me see the whole call of "enforcing immigration law" as a mere pretext for something much more sinister.
On terminology, "fascism" seems appropriate to me based on Eco's Ur-Fascism. But as I said I'm open to other terms.
As far as "conservatism", Moldbug plainly called his thinking "reactionary" as he explicitly disclaimed conservatism as not far enough right. My rejection of "conservative" is not based on just this topic - this movement has destroyed or subjugated so many disparate US institutions that I think it's patently absurd to call it "conservative".
> I am only aware of an order given to move along, which was questionably unlawful if issued in retaliation for Constitutionally-protected observation and protest.
She was ordered to exit her vehicle. She then accelerated into a law enforcement officer after her wife told her to “drive baby, drive”.
I suggest you find the unedited videos, that have not been cut or misleadingly had their audio replaced with reporter voice overs.
It’s cut and dry. Then I suggest you look into why you only received a curated and biased representation of the facts.
An order to exit her vehicle wouldn't be in furtherance of the operation ICE was engaged in. This means it was in retaliation for her Constitutionally-protected activity, making that making that order unlawful. Pragmatically, it was of course utterly stupid to not comply (as with most masked armed gangs of attackers barking orders at you), but we're talking about the legality here.
> She then accelerated into a law enforcement officer
I'm sure it does seem "cut and dry" when you start your analysis at the point the government agents had already set themselves up to kill her if she did not stop protesting and respect their authorituh.
I made several points about how the situation was needlessly escalated to that point you're focusing on, but you've just ignored them. You're complaining about the media editing videos and omitting facts, but you're effectively creating an edit in your own head that starts after the situation had been needlessly escalated multiple ways, which absolves the government agents of responsibility for those escalations.
They absolutely are but based on your insulting and condescending comment no amount of facts or evidence would convince you otherwise until their boot is on your own neck
They’re absolutely not; your type has been repeating this nonsense for literally 12 years now.
The sky isn’t falling, chicken little. However, your emotional disregulation is still being used as a convenient political tool, even after all these years.
The rise of Nazi Germany took roughly 14-16 years, so I'd say we're about right on schedule based on the current timeline. Maybe you should study history more and spew partisan edgelord nonsense less, but you wouldn't really have much of an identity at all then, would you?
The lady doth protest too much, methinks... Struggles with your mental health in the past? Do you want to talk about it? It's nothing to be ashamed of...
Also, history might not repeat, but it certainly does rhyme. :)
Dude, you're practically frothing at the mouth rambling about mental health in nearly every post and talking about some imagined left destabilization of the world. Are you okay? You can ask for help. You don't have to struggle with this obsession by yourself. There are professionals for this sort of thing.
> … no amount of facts or evidence would convince you otherwise until their boot is on your own neck
> The rise of Nazi Germany took roughly 14-16 years, so I'd say we're about right on schedule based on the current timeline.
I appreciate you trying to save face, but this is what you were posting just a few messages up.
Pretending to be reasonable works better when we can’t read the detached-from-reality things you were literally just posting.
If we were really on the cusp of a new post-Weimar NSDAP Germany, almost any form of resistance would be ethically justified. Is that what you’re claiming?
It's only natural for you to try to deflect away from discussing your own clear struggles with neurosis and insecurities about your own mental health, but I really do feel like you'd benefit from leaning into this moment and maybe discovering why you're unable to hold a discussion without resorting to overly transparent attempts at painting anyone that disagrees with you as mentally unwell rather than engaging with anything of substance. It speaks to a deeply rooted issue in your psyche where you must project your own fears and worries about your mental health on to others rather than face your own ignorance and a lack of basic maturity that is unbecoming of someone of your age.
I'm guessing you struggle to keep longterm relationships because you blame all of your issues on other people rather than being able to self-reflect on your own flaws and, because of your own supreme confidence in your own flawed judgement, it drives everyone away that might care about you. Is it hard to be that miserable and unlikeable? I'm sure it is, but the good news is that you can work on yourself and you can improve your relations with your fellow humans. It is possible to change and grow.
Let me repeat. If we were really on the cusp of a new post-Weimar NSDAP Germany, almost any form of resistance would be ethically justified. Is that what you’re claiming?
It’s revealing that you need that little morality-play false dilemma to avoid the actual topic.
You’ve used “mentally ill” the way other people use citations: as a substitute for substance. It doesn’t make you the adult in the room, it just makes you look like someone who can’t defend a position without trying to pathologize disagreement.
Here’s one fact you can’t hand-wave away: DHS/USCIS is proposing to expand biometrics collection (including DNA) to people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request (explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories, i.e., often U.S. citizens) regardless of age.
So, you can either argue why sweeping citizens into government biometric/DNA collection for paperwork is normal and lawful, or you can keep doing the “everyone who disagrees with me is unstable” routine. One of those is an argument; the other is a tell.
“Boot on the neck” is a metaphor for state power being applied to people who can’t meaningfully resist it, not a claim that we’re already living in 1933 Berlin. And “history rhymes” isn’t “Trump is literally Hitler”, it’s the (obvious) point that democratic backsliding happens incrementally, and the people enabling it always insist the alarm is “hysteria” right up until it isn’t.
Also: notice how you still didn’t touch the substance. One concrete example: DHS/USCIS is proposing expanded biometrics collection (including DNA) for people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request—explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories (often U.S. citizens), regardless of age.
So, answer the actual question you keep dodging: do you think sweeping citizens into biometric/DNA collection as a condition of filing paperwork is normal and lawful, yes or no? If yes, cite the authority and defend the scope. If no, congratulations: you’ve been arguing with my tone because you can’t defend the policy.
Your “uno reverse” line is basically an admission that the only thing you’ve got is vibes and insult-work.
A few comments ago you were certain: “They’re not [outside the law]. The deportations will continue regardless of the tantrums of the hysterical and mentally ill.”
Now that we’re discussing the actual proposal, you’ve retreated to “maybe… probably litigated… depends.” That’s fine (updating your confidence is what adults do) but it also makes the earlier psych-eval routine look like what it was: posture covering for lack of specifics.
And the “not relevant to HN” line is especially rich after pages of (a) armchair diagnoses and (b) violence-bait hypotheticals. If it’s “not deserving of breathless remarks,” you could have tried addressing the policy instead of policing tone.
One concrete fact remains: DHS/USCIS is proposing expanded biometrics collection (including DNA) for people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request, explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories (often U.S. citizens), regardless of age.
And this isn’t happening in some vacuum of “everything is fine” vibes:
Hundreds of U.S. citizens have been detained by immigration agents, including cases where people report being held more than a day.
ICE conducts arrests with agents masking/obscuring their identities.
DHS labeled people “domestic terrorists” in the Chicago sweeps, and then DOJ dropped the case and it was dismissed with prejudice.
This same administration just carried out a military operation that captured Venezuela’s sitting president (Maduro), and publicly refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland.
ICE agents shooting and killing a mother on the street and labelling her as a "domestic terrorist" (similar to the pattern in Chicago that was dismissed with prejudice).
If you think that scope and pattern are normal and lawful, defend them; quote the authority and explain why it’s appropriate. If you can’t, then what you’re calling “breathless” is just me noticing you don’t actually have an argument, only a vibe and a whistle.
I think it's a bit judgemental to declare what "the fun part" is. As a kid, I loved both -- I'd build sets as defined and keep them as-is forever. I'd play with them, too, but I liked the model aspect.
I also had tons of extra bricks that I'd use for free-form play. I loved both aspects.
As an adult, I don't really have the time or interest in "playing space explorers" or "driving" little cars and trains through lego "city" towns. But I still love building the prettier models and having them on a shelf.
Have you read Project 2025? I've read a fair amount of it, and I don't recall this being its focus, or any of this being part of its policy recommendations.
> “Should I wear a keffiyeh to the shooting range?”
I'll give the writer this -- they conveyed a lot of information in just one short first sentence. I read a bit farther, but it didn't tell me anything I couldn't already guess from that sentence.
If all of this really worked, Claude Code would not be a buggy, slow, frustratingly limited, and overall poorly written application. It can't even reload a "plugin" at runtime. Something that native code plugin hosts have been doing since plugins existed, where it's actually hard to do.
Claude Plugins are a couple `.md` file references, some `/command` handler registrations, and a few other pieces of trivial state. There's not a lot there, but you have to restart the whole damn app to install or update one.
Plus, there's the **ing terminal refresh bug they haven't managed to fix over the past year. Maybe put a team of 30 code agents on that. If I sound bitter, it's because the model itself is genuinely very good. I've just been stuck for a very long time working with it through Claude Code.
Yes, anthropics product design is truly bad, as is their product strategy (hey, I know you just subscribed to Claude, but that isnt Claude Code which you need to separately subscribe to, but you get access to Claude Code if you subscribe to a certain tier of Claude, but not the other way around. Also, you need to subscribe to Claude Code with api key and not usage based pricing or else you cant use Claude Code in certain ways. And I know you have Claude and Claude Code access, but actually you cant use Claude Code in Claude, sorry)
Meanwhile, the individual upthread suggesting they’d support a foreign power invading the US and capturing Trump is the ridiculous, childish, and deeply unserious brand of self-loathing that we are voraciously (and necessarily, if our country is to survive) opposed to.
You, personally, might, but I think it's going to be a clusterfuck. You can't stick a different person in a cult of personality and expect it to act the same.
If we have IPv4 address 1.2.3.4, and the hypothetical IPv4+ adds 1.2.3.4.1.2.3.4 (or longer), how would a IPv4-only router handle 1.2.3.4.1.2.3.4? If an IPv4-only host or application gets a DNS response with 1.2.3.4.1.2.3.4, how is it supposed to use it?
As I see it, the transition mechanism for some IPv4+ that 'only' has longer addresses is exactly the same as for IPv6: new code paths that use new data structures, with a gradual rollout with tech refreshes and code updates where hosts slowly go from IPv4-only to IPv4-and-IPv4+ at different rates in different organizations.
If you think it's somehow different, can you explain how it is so? What proposal available (especially when IPng was being decided on in the 1990s) would have allowed for a transition that is different than the one described above (gradual, uncoördinated rollout)?
The proposal is that IPv4+ would be interpretable as an IPv4 packet. Either the IP header is extended, or we add another protocol layer for the IPv4+ bits (IPv4+ is another envelope for the user payload).
DNS is like today: A and AAAA records for IPv4 and IPv4+ respectively.
Core routers do not need to know about IPv4+, and might never know.
The transition is similar to 6to4. The edge router does translation to allow IPv4+ hosts to connect to IPv4 hosts. IPv4 hosts are unable to connect to IPv4+ directly (only via NAT). So it has the similar problem to IPv6 that you ideally want all servers to have a full IPv4 address.
What you don't have is a completely parallel addressing system, requirements to upgrade all routers (only edge routers for 4+ networks), requirements to have your ISP cooperate (they can just give you an IPv4 and you handle IPv4+ with your own router), and no need that the clients have two stacks operating at once.
It's essentially a better NAT, one where the clients behind other NATs can directly connect, and where the NAT gradually disappears completely.
If you hand UTF-8 that actually uses anything added by utf-8 to something that can only render ASCII, the text will be garbled. People can read garbled text ok if it’s a few missing accented characters in a western language, but it’s no good for Japanese or Arabic.
In networking terms, this is like a protocol which can reach ipv4 hosts only but loses packets to the ipv4+ hosts randomly depending on what it passes through. Who would adopt a networking technology that fails randomly?
You’re not wrong, but I have been running complicated multi-site VPNs with a small homelab multi-subnet / VLAN setup for 25 years and still have yet to have a collision.
My home network is dual-stack these days, but because my IPv6 prefix is dynamically delegated by my ISP, I actually use site-private IPv6 addresses for all my internal servers and infrastructure.
The thing is though, I don’t even need IPv6. Comcast Business broke my delegation for six+ months and I literally didn’t even notice.
IPv6 tried to do way too much. The second system syndrome was strong. It’s no wonder folks are annoyed at the complexity, and as long as IPv4 continues to works for them, they aren’t particularly pressed to adopt it.
> You’re not wrong, but I have been running complicated multi-site VPNs with a small homelab multi-subnet / VLAN setup for 25 years and still have yet to have a collision.
And I've been in corporate IT networks with mergers/acquisitions where both organizations involved had 10.0.0.0/24. Ever have NAT inside a company? Fun stuff. (Thrown in some internal-only split-horizon DNS too.)
Then there's the fact that in the COVID period we had IPs for VPN clients (172.*) in the same range as what some developers used for their Docker stuff. Hilarity.
Even supposedly prosumer gear sucks at ipv6. The ubiquiti situation was awful about a year ago. I got a dynamic prefix and wanted to setup ULA. Maybe I was dumb, but I couldn't find any way to do it.
Heck, I couldnt even see which prefix I was handled, nor could I see any ipv6 address anywhere in the gui. This was with a self hosted up to date controller though. YMMV.
You want your designers to have accurate color reproduction for obvious reasons, but they should be testing their work on shitty monitors, too.
reply