Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mrala's commentslogin

Interestingly, from the article you linked:

> The quote "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law." (Spanish: Para mis amigos, todo; para mis enemigos, la ley) is often attributed to Benavides, although other sources also attribute it to other Latin American heads of state, such as Benito Juárez, Juan Perón, Getulio Vargas, or Juscelino Kubitschek.


* https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12172510-for-my-friends-eve...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

At least it's not Abraham Lincoln or Albert Einstein. semi-/s For contentions ones I do a search, especially https://quoteinvestigator.com


> Is all of this arbitrary?

You’re describing language.


> It was also perplexing when Iran was shooting missiles at their allies, until you realize they aren't rational humans.

Ah yes, the classic “my enemies are ontologically evil” gambit.


What is your definition of speech? It seems like you are defining it literally.


> NemoClaw is expected to be officially unveiled at NVIDIA's annual developer conference, GTC 2026, scheduled for mid-March 2026. NVIDIA has been actively presenting the platform to enterprise software companies ahead of the public announcement.

Guess we will find out.


> But this rant's "solution", which seems to be "let's empower the police state to do more excesses" - yeah, no.

What led you to believe this is the solution presented in the article? Much less try to pass those statements off as quoting or paraphrasing.

> Maybe let's just ensure that everyone gets the same due process?

That is the actual solution presented in the last two sections of the article.


Have a link to your blog?



It sounds objective to claim a reasonable person would not kill a person because they felt scared. Based on the video footage[0], a reasonable person would be able to tell that woman presented no threat. Even if you argue shooting her in the leg because he was scared, it is nearly impossible to claim he was still scared and he has stalked her around her car and then shot her five more times. That is objectively, an unreasonable response to being scared when it’s apparent the woman was not endangering his life.

[0]: https://youtu.be/RSlOY39ynaY


The article continues to argue the point:

> Sanchez was charged following a search that ICE proclaimed on social media turned up “literal insurrectionist propaganda” he had allegedly transported from his home to an apartment, noting that “insurrectionary anarchism is regarded as the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat.” The tweet also said that Sanchez is a green card holder granted legal status through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

> The indictment claims Sanchez was transporting those materials to conceal them because they incriminated his wife. But how can possession of literature incriminate anyone, let alone someone who isn’t even accused of anything but being present when someone else allegedly fired a gun? Zines aren’t contraband; it’s not illegal to be an anarchist or read about anarchism. I don’t know why Sanchez allegedly moved the box of documents, but if it was because he (apparently correctly) feared prosecutors would try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s.


This is some serious mental gymnastics. Possessing "legal" goods can absolutely be circumstantially incriminating. Carrying around a bat can be circumstantial evidence of a crime. Carrying lockpicks (in CA at least) is legal, but carrying them around a neighborhood where you don't live at 2am is going to get you brought to the police station.


I feel like you are ignoring the bit where this is presented as "the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat."

Also "someone who isn’t even accused of anything"


I understand how one might use a bat to hurt someone or break something. I understand how one might use lockpicks to steal something. I don't understand how one might use a magazine or pamphlet to shoot a police officer.


The title is “Did a US Chess Champion Cheat?” and the text of the article uses statistical analysis to show that the person most likely did not cheat. What would you consider to be misleading between the title and the article?


When I opened the article I thought it was going to be about someone cheating at the US Chess Championship.


"Statistical analysis shows US Chess Champion most likely did not cheat, despite recent claims" would be nice


The headline also complies with Betteridge's Law of Headlines. It's entirely legal.



Headlines following Betteridge's law were the original clickbait, and this definitely fits.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: