HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | josefritzishere's commentslogin

Mandatory state ideology is very worrisome.

This has been a thing in the USA for a long time hasn't it? Iirc, they have (legally not mandatory, but functionally mandatory) pledges at the start of every school day right?

Some schools do it some don’t.

Participation is never mandatory and retaliation or forcing the pledge is an invitation for an expensive civil rights suit.


Wait, which schools don't do it? I've never heard of a school not doing it. Are there states that don't do the pledge?

Even if it's not strictly "mandatory" there can be substantial pressure in conservative areas. https://hackernews.hn/item?id=47095381


I definitely never did it in high school in Denver, nor did any of the other schools that my friends went to in the city.

I don’t have a list of schools for you.

Sure peer pressure can be a thing (at the school I went to you would have been bullied for doing the pledge), but it is pretty firmly established law that a student has every right to not participate and not be pressured to participate by public school staff.


Interesting, didn't know that was a thing in Denver. No need for a list of schools.

In my case the pressure came from my teachers and the principal. I never got in any official trouble but I was sent to the principal's office for refusing to say it and it required a phone call with my dad for them to begrudgingly let me continue to not say it.


I don't think it is always "states" as much as individual school districts / schools.

I know some that don't, it's not announced that they don't and as long as nobody notices I don't think anyone local really cares.


They never made me say it but they did make me stand while the other kids did. That said... that was more than three decades ago.

I was only 9 the first time it happened but even back then it felt really weird.


It is certainly not mandatory. There's simply enormous social pressure to be a state toadie.

> This has been a thing in the USA for a long time hasn't it?

Yes, and it doesn't make it any less cult-like.


This seems like something the current SCOTUS would shut down very quickly, but I could be wrong.

This seems like something the current SCOTUS might shut down in 13 months. Long enough to do some real damage to our country, but short enough that true believers will claim it was never given a chance.

So was racial profiling for the sake of immigration enforcement, but, well...

The current SCOTUS has, so far, given the Trump administration a lot of rope to hang us by. If they use it to hang themselves remains to be seen.

Down the road they are taking us, there's rope for everyone. A-plenty.

Even for them, even though they may believe otherwise now. There's no loyalty among thieves.


Nothing mandatory, so no worries

With respect... the FCC is a regulatory agency. There is an obvious set of forcing functions here. It's not normal and is very concerning.

It’s pretty common of regulators to ask things of those they regulate. CMS asks for input regarding healthcare changes, EPA asks for input on new standards, and so one. Is there some impression that regulators just blindly bark orders and are punitive to those that don’t comply, even when compliance isn’t mandatory? Be as cynical as you want but I see this as pretty innocent and wish we still had a patriotic culture in America and I support finding ways to try to rebuild it. This seems reasonable and was only a request for common good of the nation. Make it political all you want but I don’t think that’s what it is.

The primary function of the FCC is in engineering compliance: HAAT, power, frequency, contour, allocation etc. Their other functions are secondary. Our broadcast regulatory infastruction is more like Canada, not North Korea. We only regulate content very nominally. A change in this philosophy is chilling.

They're not a rulemaking agency. They're very tightly bound by an entire dedicated section of the US Title Code.

More importantly licensees pledge to serve their _local_ communities and maintain _local_ standards. That's the entire well documented point of the license system. As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.


> They're not a rulemaking agency.

Does this phrase have non obvious meaning? They are an agency and make rules.[1]

> As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.

To prompt local complaints would be trivial.

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-rulemaking



I’m a cynical person but this is a reach. There’s a huge gap between what this is and how I interpret “mandatory”. There’s nothing even punitive being discussed. They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this. They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…” it’s not dictating anything particular in how the programming celebrates American just asking that they lean into it in some special way they deem appropriate.

> Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.


> There’s nothing even punitive being discussed.

The article said Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.

> They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this.

Carr's view of public interest included suspending Jimmy Kimmel for his criticism of Trump and other MAGA figures after Charlie Kirk was killed.[1]

> They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…”

There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat. And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-jimmy-kimmels-sh...


I find these tales of lawyerly threats completley validate the hackers actions. They reported the bug to spur the company to resolve it. Their reaction all but confirms that reporting it to them directly would not have been productive. Their management lacks good stewardship. They are not thinking about their responsibility to their customers and employees.

It's a shame. Perdue managed to get wway from antibiotics but KFC went the other way.

Maybe it is not a big deal? Chicken goes through withdrawal period and level of residue is tested in end product, supposedly..

If you pump livestock (chicken, cows or pigs) full of antibiotics, surely they are going to piss/crap a lot of it into the environment, hastening antibiotic resistance.

but it will be localized farm environment only..

Its just question of risk/benefit ratio, benefit is clear: cheap meat, because producers will be less impacted by deceases. Risks are not so clear in this case.


It doesn't stay localized; runoff from farmland is a major issue. In other words, the farm animal poops out a bunch of antiobiotics, then it rains and that poop ends up washing into the river/lake/water table. That's already something that happens with situations like E. coli contamination. Things that happen on the farm don't stay on the farm.

Ok, still focus could be not on avoiding antibiotics completely, but preventing runoff, or finding types which decay faster in environment.

Do we know even if we can build sustainable large scale industry without antibiotics?


I nuked my fb account years ago. I wasn't sure at the time if I was craving more substance or if it was becoming more vapid. Looking back not... definitely both.

Tesla would benefit from the board replacing the CEO. It's increasingly clear that there is a problem and it's not talent, it's decision-making.

Their stock would crash to $10 without the hype machine

Après moi, le déluge.

It will be zero if they keep doing the same shit

Ultimately, I believe there will need to be something catastrophic to oust musk/change leadership. And by that point, its questionable if anything worthwhile will be left to salvage.

My current bet is that optimus will fail spectacularly and Tesla gets left far behind as Rivian's R2 replaces it.

One thing I will note: I know folks that work at TSLA. Musk is more of a distraction. If he goes and if competent leadership is brought in, there's still enough people and momentum to make something happen...


this is literally one of 1-3 companies who have a decent strategy in the age of AI. the rest is pretending changes will not affect them. even this judgement: the guy decided to pick the phone while driving car not capable of red light detection. It could be any other car with similar auto steer capabilities. Right now same car with OTA updates would keep him alive. Sure, they are doing something wrong.

Did mecha-Hitler tell you that?

Will it actually? Has the market sent any signal that they won’t tolerate Musk?

You’re a lot more optimistic about this than I am.


Tesla has made some great cars, but their CEO is not making sound decisions . I really think a new CEO could turn around Tesla. It doesn't need to hit rock bottom first. Every major auto company has been through this.

I really like the blog layout. Nice use of contrasting colors.

There should be legal penalties for failing to inform users in a timely fashion. A 6 month delay is ridiculous. They put all their users at risk.

Self censorship under an authoritarian government is all too common https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

Am I imagining it or has flagging become more frequent? I wanted to suggest that might warrrant an update to the policy on the FAQ and maybe an announcement if it's official.

The number of flags to kill a post is part of the secret sauce. I think dang/tomhow never told anybody about the threshold HN uses. It probably changes from time to time, or perhaps no, who knows.

I think the community is in a phase right now, driven by the massive increase in clawd spam. So the flag button is likely getting clicked more and that has leakage.

Flagging is something the community does, not the two official moderators. What do you see changing in the FAQ?


That makes sense and is certainly legitimate. But I was noticing some politicla topics seem to be most likely to be flagged. I also sometimes see them get flagged before the thread even gets long. So I was wondering if some political topics seem to be off-limits.

Yea, the political side is another aspect, similar to Trump 1.0 if you were around HN for that, but also amped up like everything around Trump 2.0

I was not around for 1.0; it sounds colorful. The HN guidance on curiosity, kindness, being thoughtful and substansive...all solid. The same guidelines describe "politics" as "off topic" but not prohibited. I had thought there may be specific subtopics which are actually prohibited. What I probably have been seeing is that clawdbot is more active on divisive topics, because of key words, and thus gets flagged.

Generally politics gets to the front when it overlaps with some other topic HN is passionate about. Trump must make headlines each day, so the frequency of stories that overlap are elevated.

If only the US had done this.

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

Search: