It's a good story, but what I'm remembering and is relevant here is this:
> At some point, I realized that if I wrote a wiki page and documented the things that we were willing to support, I could wait about six months and then it would be like it had always been there.
Authoritarians and fascists recognize this potential to create new "truths". If you say it enough, it's the truth. If you change things and say it's always been that way, then it was. If you're willing to drag through the mud, fire, prosecute, imprison, harm, or kill those who push back, fewer people push back. Even if everyone "knows" it's false, it no longer matters - most operate as if it is true.
That's why this shit makes people nervous, why people are on edge about information changing on government websites for no apparent reason. Trump has repeatedly shown a willingness to inflict his view of reality on others, with force, and without regard for facts.
I am trivializing the LOC Constitution page thing and nothing you can say is going to make me stop, because the conspiracy theory behind it doesn't make any sense. By continuing to defend it, you're making my point for me about this Intel story (where malfeasance would make sense!).
But we're going around in circles and should probably just let this go.
In this thread: a household name in the infosec field tells us to chill out and let our guard down, despite a pattern of abuse and contempt for democratic norms not seen in developed Western countries since the 1930s.
>Eh. Without getting anywhere near the merits of this particular fracas, the federal government has gotten deeply involved in critiquing the management of companies like Lockheed and Boeing, both for national security reasons and because of the importance of those companies to the economy. Easy to see Intel fitting into that mold in 2025.
Which was you saying "this Intel thing is NBD and basically the same as a bunch of past things presidents have done."
That's the original false equivalency I called you out on. And which you now disagree with apparently, because now you think the Intel thing is potential malfeasance? I don't think you really know what your position is anymore.
I have no idea if it's no big deal or not, only that it's not unprecedented and of all the companies you'd expect to see something like this happen at in a normal administration, this is the one.
Again, what is the precedent for the president of the united states to publicly call on a CEO to resign, in the absence of a major scandal or company failure that has required the government to intervene to save the public / investors / etc?
You keep saying it's the same old shit but when people point out the differences you change the subject. You're basically a troll.
The theory behind this Constitution thing is as if, after altering the weather map, the weather changed.
Well, it would have if he had been allowed to use nuclear weapons on the hurricane instead of just a Sharpie.
I remember this blog post coming across HN when it was posted: https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2025/07/07/support/
It's a good story, but what I'm remembering and is relevant here is this:
> At some point, I realized that if I wrote a wiki page and documented the things that we were willing to support, I could wait about six months and then it would be like it had always been there.
Authoritarians and fascists recognize this potential to create new "truths". If you say it enough, it's the truth. If you change things and say it's always been that way, then it was. If you're willing to drag through the mud, fire, prosecute, imprison, harm, or kill those who push back, fewer people push back. Even if everyone "knows" it's false, it no longer matters - most operate as if it is true.
Let's not forget that years later, Trump felt the need to inflict revenge on NOAA employees connected to sharpiegate: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/two-high-rankin...
That's why this shit makes people nervous, why people are on edge about information changing on government websites for no apparent reason. Trump has repeatedly shown a willingness to inflict his view of reality on others, with force, and without regard for facts.
You trivialize it at your own peril.
I am trivializing the LOC Constitution page thing and nothing you can say is going to make me stop, because the conspiracy theory behind it doesn't make any sense. By continuing to defend it, you're making my point for me about this Intel story (where malfeasance would make sense!).
But we're going around in circles and should probably just let this go.
In this thread: a household name in the infosec field tells us to chill out and let our guard down, despite a pattern of abuse and contempt for democratic norms not seen in developed Western countries since the 1930s.
Super normal response to a temporary website glitch at the 9th most popular online copy of the US Constitution.
Actually your original point was:
>Eh. Without getting anywhere near the merits of this particular fracas, the federal government has gotten deeply involved in critiquing the management of companies like Lockheed and Boeing, both for national security reasons and because of the importance of those companies to the economy. Easy to see Intel fitting into that mold in 2025.
Which was you saying "this Intel thing is NBD and basically the same as a bunch of past things presidents have done."
That's the original false equivalency I called you out on. And which you now disagree with apparently, because now you think the Intel thing is potential malfeasance? I don't think you really know what your position is anymore.
I have no idea if it's no big deal or not, only that it's not unprecedented and of all the companies you'd expect to see something like this happen at in a normal administration, this is the one.
Again, what is the precedent for the president of the united states to publicly call on a CEO to resign, in the absence of a major scandal or company failure that has required the government to intervene to save the public / investors / etc?
You keep saying it's the same old shit but when people point out the differences you change the subject. You're basically a troll.