Was it? I can’t find that in the linked article. The source for the ~7,000 deaths linked near the only instance of “30,000” says it was over the first fifty days.
It’s unclear where the 30,000 comes from because the article doesn’t cite a source for that number. You’re drawing an unsubstantiated connection between two (or more?) articles so you can invoke and then discredit a specific reporter.
At this point I’m not sure what you are even talking about but you seem to have an agenda.
> The Dresden fire bombing required tons of munitions and the toll was 25,000
For clarity 3,900 tons over four raids and 1,500 planes.
I’m not sure how to translate that into modern munitions but I’m also uncertain why a strategic bombing death toll should tell us anything about Iranian protester deaths. Iran isn’t doing strategic bombing of their citizens, they’re using small arms across hundreds of locations.
The linked article cites a source [1] with detailed methodology for their actual claim of 7,000 deaths and mentions that other unmentioned sources claim it could go as high as 30,000. I don’t see any claim of that being in a single day.
Given the timeframe and widespread nature of these protests it doesn’t seem implausible.
A better comparison would be, say, the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. 642 French civilians were killed in one afternoon by approximately 150 SS infrantrymen.
Or the Babi Yar massacre, where 33,771 Jews were murdered over the course of two days, by approximately 300 to 500 SS and German policemen.
Not everyone's up in their WW2 history: Just as a reminder: "In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 772 heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the German city of Dresden."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden.
I love Detroit. A city overflowing with history and character. The thing that struck me the most about Detroit was the pride. The people who live there love their city in a way I have not seen elsewhere. I encourage everyone to visit. It was nothing like what I expected.
My roots are firmly planted in Seattle now but just a few years ago I was seriously considering a move. If I ever left here Detroit is high on my list.
What if the government reveals the name of a victim of sexual assault? Is that doxxing? What about a political rival in connection with a made up crime? What about a true but benign crime such as accessing reproductive healthcare?
While I don’t think this case is accurately described as Doxxing I also reject the definition that the state can’t commit Doxxing. The reason this situation doesn’t count is because of due process, not simply state action. The state is not infallible, regardless of what immunity may try to establish.
That's a fair point and I agree with you on both counts.
As you said, in this particular case, the respective judicial entities purposefully released the personal information with the intent of arresting both. Whether that is successful or not remains to be seen but that's a different story.
For me personally, I understand doxing to be the release of personal information with malicious, indirect intent. For example, hoping that an angry mob will find the home of a person and attack them, send the person death threats through the post, etc.
Assuming a decently functional justice system, I don't consider an arrest warrant a malicious intent.
18yrs here and fully agree, but it's against the rules to discuss it :)
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit.
also has these rules though which is a nice reminder
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Strange that SpaceX doesn’t seem to be suffering from that limitation. Could it be that the real problem is pork barrel spending and government wastefulness?
Why would they go to the moon? They’re far too busy doing things that actually matter, such as slashing launch costs by 80% or more, while achieving the highest reliability of any launch system ever.
What are you talking about? SLS is on the way to the Moon now. Starship is still in development. SpaceX only exists because of massive NASA subsidy. Any success from SpaceX is thanks to NASA.
NASA provided SpaceX some money as a startup to bet they could just start commercial space, and they won to the tune of saving millions of dollars. There was never massive subsidies and there isn’t any subsidies at all today.
This is a lie. SpaceX has received at least 3.5 billion dollars from NASA for contracts. You can claim these aren’t subsidies but they are direct funding that allowed SpaceX to build up revenue streams like Starlink using the launch vehicles paid for by NASA. It’s the exact same funding model that Boeing takes advantage of. SpaceX would not exist without NASA. They’re collaborators, not competitors.
Was it? I can’t find that in the linked article. The source for the ~7,000 deaths linked near the only instance of “30,000” says it was over the first fifty days.
reply