| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | |
> you are happy with this outcome, but also so upset at the people that evangelized your preferred policy position that you think HN readers should cut them from the information diet? I'm fine with this outcome. I genuinely don't care about HN readers' opinions on this. I posted the original consultation to HN to crickets [1]. It's abundantly clear that people want to use this as a useless vector for griping. > most likely that the public outcry actually influenced this outcome Nope. Lots of reasons to show how and why that is the case. From personal connections to the timeline of the decision making. But I'm sure that's how the same YouTube commentors who misled the first time will spin it to great effect... > I don't see why the nuances of alarmism about it (imminent decision vs fait accomplit) should nix an entire information source Because they're bad information sources. They're terrific entertainment. And if you recognise that, keep subscribing. But this is in line with the numpties who listen to All In like it's the gospel. | ||