Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I wonder if just injecting a typo into each banned word when its used will be enough to bypass the keyword search for auto-banning.
    by deadbabe
  • Which will have side effects affecting other realms (search and indexing etc.).

    And besides, when a regime asks e.g to "prosecute all intellectuals - wearing glasses will be a sufficient criterion to identify them" workarounds are not the point.

    by mdp2021
  • Or take a page from IDN homograph attacks in phishing/whatever and replace certain 'a', 'e', 'o' letters with their unicode equivalent that's not English.
    by walrus01
  • The trump admin is a hive of scum and villainy worthy of a comic book universe, and Musk is inextricably linked. Thus anyone using twitter or grok or buying a Tesla or using starlink is complicit.

    EDIT: or working for these companies!! Couldn’t pay me enough to do it.

    by dools
  • "admin" is what we call a regime that works properly. This one doesn't, so it's a "regime".
    by inigyou
  • The Ukrainian government apparently
    by inemesitaffia
  • > Musk is inextricably linked

    That's understating it. Musk was the lead role in the cutting, he'd have OK'd the list if not partially authored it.

    by BLKNSLVR
  • Don't most airlines use starlink nowadays? Therefore anyone who flies in a commercial airplane is complicit.
    by fluidcruft
  • Ah, yes, what could go wrong?

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

    by rsynnott
  • Americas cultural revolution
    by dluan
  • ancestral values coming back
    by dandanua
  • *devolution
    by hallgrim
  • Related:

    Banned Words List

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49319573

    by ChrisArchitect
  • I think hacker types look at this list and think, "Wow--that's inept." But I also feel that the administration looks at the list and says, "No, it's absolutely brilliant."

    And I figure that's because our goals are different.

    by beej71
  • Biologists I know were reporting that they'd changed their grant proposals to study e.g. ovarian cancer in "non-male" mice
    by floren
  • Why? They could simply study "ovarian cancer in mice". Was it a protest?
    by M95D
  • Testosterone-challenged mice?

    Not sure if that would get additional funding or have it cut.

    by BLKNSLVR
  • You would think the "Freedom of speech" crowd was up to to arms over a list of banned words from the deep government.

    But no, they still seem to busy on Twitter being angry about a Muslim Mayor in New York.

    by happosai
  • since when does freedom of speech cover "getting money from the government". there is broad latitude for to government to restrict the speech of employees in general (if you are a nonappointed employee of the executive branch you cannot lobby the legislature as a matter of separation of powers, if youre in the military or privy to top secret materials, theres a ton of things you can't say).
    by dnautics
  • I’ve found the “freedom of speech” crowd understands freedom the least; notably, that rights come with responsibilities. They want the rights, none of the responsibilities, and to be arbiters of the rights of others (again, they really don’t understand freedom and rights).

    A similarly daft group are those who believe in “states rights”, and they make the same mistake: they want states rights, unless it contradicts other things they want. It’s not a real position, they’re fascists.

    by analognoise
  • They can't seem to decide whether Zohran Mamdani is going to first implement total sharia law, or full red banner style communism. In response I have already seen people printing a few satirical tshirts with a mishmash of soviet era/hammer and sickle iconography and minarets and moons glorifying the Socialist Peoples Republic of Mamadanistan.
    by walrus01
  • I understand your impulse to say that but political appointees are the opposite of "deep government" so your expectation about what their supporters would think is completely wrong.
    by fluidcruft
  • "Freedom of speech" crowd curiously picked whose speech is important freedom thing and whose speech is actually anti-free-speech, because it is uncomfortable for the former free speech.

    Trying to remove this or that group from civil life and push them into helpless silent situation is important free speech. Protesting this person is not free speech, it is infraction against free speech. Offending certain group is important free speech and they should grow a thicker skin rather then responding. Responding to that is infraction, because bigot has free speech right to never hear something that does not make them feel good.

    by watwut
  • These people who work for this administration are all so grossly and maliciously incompetent.
    by hn_throwaway_99
  • (And/)Or maybe uncaring ("psychotic", technically speaking) exploiters of the system of incentives... "Conformists".
    by mdp2021
  • Should be criminal.
    by Varelion
  • It's easier to understand if you consider they might literally be agents of a foreign government.
    by walrus01
  • They are quite competent at causing enough chaos for those with inside knowledge and wealth to exploit.
    by throwaway27448
  • Its important to note that US deficit spending is breaking records. They can't even pretend that they're saving money.

    [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/u-budget-d...

    by wnevets
  • 432bn/month is that right?
    by hahahaa