Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | hodder's commentslogin

Highly unlikely an entire chain of military personnel knew it was a school and was like, "yeah get em good, and lets see when they come scrambling in for their kids corpses".

Do you hear yourself? Have you ever in your life met someone this sadistic? It was definitely a mistake. One might argue criminal negligence, but there is no way everyone in the loop here is just pure evil. That just isn't how people think in North America. It is unfathomable that a team of US military (people with families of their own no doubt), would all nod along and agree with your contention.


> It is unfathomable that a team of US military (people with families of their own no doubt), would all nod along and agree with your contention.

The Vietnam and Korean wars would like to have a word.

Your belief that the US military is guided by any kind of moral or ethical line is naïve at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23427726


If the US military was unethical, it wouldn't have lost in Afghanistan.

The problem is fighting unethical enemies, because they do shit like use ambulances as troop transport, have soldiers dress the same as civilians, and given any kid old enough to shoot a rifle.

To your post more specifically, is there is no one holding these unethical enemies responsible. There are no history books, or journalists, or wikipedia articles about the insane shit they do.

The Taliban has a base where they truck in young boys to "service" the officers and it's lost to time. The US has a single ethics catastrophe, and they are held up for it for decades...


> If the US military was unethical, it wouldn't have lost in Afghanistan

You can be unethical and still profoundly incompetent.


Smoking out villages and shooting everything that moves with cutting edge weaponry doesn't require much competence.

Which is why the US famously won the Vietnam war...

If that was the case the My Lai Massacre would be meaningless, because the entire war would have been that.


Genocide is usually not an efficient way to wage war. Even ancient armies usually did not slaughter entire towns, not because of ethics, but because fighting sucks and if you slaughter everybody you come across, nobody is going to surrender and every person you come across will fight you to the death.

I say usually, because there are some exceptions and nukes are one of them, they make genocide a viable war strategy. But even nuking Vietnam would not have worked, cause you will simply get nuked back.


Its more that you make it clear that you will kill anyone who doesn't surrender. Then most people end up surrendering.

In modern militaries though, the expectation is that you will just leave civilians alone.


There are some terrorist states that indiscriminately kill civilians though, such as Israel and the USA.

The worst thing people would do is surrendering in those cases.


> Do you hear yourself? Have you ever in your life met someone this sadistic? It was definitely a mistake.

Unfortunately there's a very large, compelling body of evidence of the US military routinely killing civilians with double tap.

Intentionally.

This is not a negligence, this is a strategy because they get off scot free.

- https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

- https://www.culawreview.org/journal/double-standards-in-inte...

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/23/substantial-evidenc...

- https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2013-08-01/bur...

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/2/trumps-boat-bombing...

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333

- https://lab.imedd.org/en/double-tap-the-tactic-that-is-consi...

Routine. They routinely exterminate civilians with this kind of attacks.

Where have you lived for the last 10 years?


The accusation is not "let's kill some kids", the accusation was "the target is in a school, bomb it anyway to get the target". Much of these targeted assassinations in the early stage of this campaign consisted of blowing up entire city blocks where a target was believed to be. They actually believed they would get pro-Israel people in the government if they killed the current crop.

pattern is there: first hit a public place (market, ...), then when people are scrambling to help, hit them again. "double-tap". Seen in Gaza, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, ... It's quite cynical, the topic has its own Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-tap_strike


Where does the article you linked say "Public Place"?

You just linked to a standard military tactic


I wouldn’t say sadistic, but the military command is very desensitized to death. When all you do is basically kill people, then killing more is like pouring a cup of coffee. It’s just part of your day.

Remember that, prior to this, the US military had been conducting many suspicious strikes on boats in the gulf. It’s not like this came out of nowhere. The culture of negligence and lack of care was well-established.


> Have you ever in your life met someone this sadistic?

All the time, on the internet. People will reveal the most deranged opinions when they feel immune from consequences for them.


The current president of the USA said he would end the entire Iranian civilization. What do you think that entails?

Lying and bravado, as always.

> Have you ever in your life met someone this sadistic?

Yes, I have. In the US. Some were active military personnel at the time.

Some folks are just warped, but some folks change a lot after they have experienced war.


> That just isn't how people think in North America.

With knowledge of history, and having met many Americans, my only comment is that they were probably too tumescent at the idea to be described as "thinking" per se.


You clearly don't understand America but that doesn't stop you from hating the people and imagining yourself above them. FYI, 60% of the population opposes this war.

You wouldn't be British, by any chance?


The way such things can actually happen is, when the executing side is of the opinion, that the targeted side are lesser beings.

I'd love to live in your fantasy world.

Which america you're talking about? It's pretty normal and expected behaviour from USA.

It's hard to tell here between naivety or deliberate thickness.

Most likely trolling. No one is that naive.

The US military has been murdering fishermen off the coast of South America this year, after firing on the boats, disabling them they were shown no quarter and kill shot orders were given AND EXECUTED. Those are WAR CRIMES. The US military has done war crimes alongside the IDF over during this current year in Iran. Furthermore, the President of The United States has publicly stated he will destroy the Iranian civilization. He has ordered new very large bombs be built to Drop on Iran. Do you care to acknowledge these facts?

Did you not see what the same country is supporting in Gaza? The created the largest contingent of child amputees in history, while withholding pain medication to use during the required surgeries. Forcing children to undergo surgery without anesthesia is as evil as it gets

> Have you ever in your life met someone this sadistic?

Not met anyone personally like that. But I have made sure that I kept good company.

However, there was precedence in the form of Nazi Germany.

Can we be sure without evidence that this administration did not do it knowingly, given how they have been behaving thus far?


> Highly unlikely an entire chain of military personnel knew it was a school and was like, "yeah get em good, and lets see when they come scrambling in for their kids corpses".

When you phrase it like that, I firmly believe that's exactly what happened.


> Do you hear yourself? Have you ever in your life met someone this sadistic?

This isn't necessarily driven by sadism. A sociopath following an amoral (immoral) decision process where they draft a plan to decapitate military leadership by trying to attract them to a place to then kill them would fit the description.

And from a moral point of view, is it justifiable to kill military personnel in a military engagement that's not even framed as a war?


This is a solution looking for a problem, built to satisfy the creator instead of serving the buyer. This is exactly what PG warns against doing. One would think Sam would know this too.

Amazing. Best post I've seen on HN in ages.

The thing is, Apple will have never lost this opportunity. The distribution advantage of the user base is so deep they can basically always implement this at will.

Well, plus a generally technologically illiterate customerbase who believe the time Apple did something was the first time it's ever been done.

Cosmic expansion happens uniformly rather than through a local gravitational pull.

In physics, "we" use the raisin bread analogy where when you bake the bread, the raisins are all getting uniformly distant from each other with no central point of expansion and no obvious sign of pulling in any specific direction such as would be the case for a gravitational effect.


muse is probably an awesome technological innovation and will still completely flop bc it’s a consumer product outside of social from Meta. It’s a solution in search of a problem. I get why the company wants this. I don’t get why any consumer does.

Isn't the functionality just a super-set of what other popular chatbots like chatgpt or claude do? Ie chat interface for llm with various tools on top. It seems like those products have plenty of happy consumers using them, and muse just does that same thing, perhaps with different or more tools.

The problem is no one wants a META agent. so yes LLMs are great. And still no one wants to use a Zuckerberg one.

I don’t get how this differs from any other optimization harness. The problem is clear, but I’m not sure on what this company is doing that is unique to solve it.


You mean like Carney did in January? Trump cannot be shown reason once he has convinced himself his gut feel is correct.


The ideal VC startups are low capex, high ROIC companies.

Energy almost universally requires massive capex to achieve a dime in revenue, and capital intensity never really subsides. YC has funded energy focused startups in the past (eg. Oklo and Helion), but it certainly cannot compete with the kind of scale and ROIC you can achieve in the digital world. Energy is difficult for seed investors.


Ok. It makes sense. YC is not the best place for this kind of companies. Let's see if I understand your point and also to clarify for other people:

- Low capex = the startup doesn't need much money invested in physical assets such as factories, machinery, warehouses, or equipment.

- High ROIC = high Return on Invested Capital. The company generates a lot of profit relative to the capital it needs to operate.

- A VC wants a startup that can grow enormously without requiring enormous amounts of additional capital. YC focus on VC money.

Correct?


Id be more weary of saying I didn't use AI.


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

Search: