The Times submission around this was flagged. Considering this particular issue actually does have a few overlaps with tech, given the nature of Saudi investment/Softbank and the tech transfer (which often stays on the front page when it’s China), as well as nuclear (which also tends to stay on the front page) - it would be nice if this isn’t flagged and there could be a substantial discussion on it.
I've seen lots of unflagged articles on here about world events which aren't necessarily related to tech, and given that this is a .gov website, there shouldn't be (as much) concern about it being politically charged.
It's a news release from a representative's office. Surely a news article from a reputable outlet would be less "politically charged" (whatever that means)?
This is from the House Oversight committee, a group made up of a bipartisan group of congressmen whose job is to oversee, investigate and report on the actions of the executive branch.
Yes, it is from the committee, but after watching GOP-controlled House committees operate for the past eight years, it's hard to claim that they can't be partisan. I'm not claiming that it's not accurate (I'd expect it to be much more factual than anything the GOP would put out), but I'd expect a well-researched news article (with actual competent journalism—not just both-sides he-said-she-said garbage) to be less "political".
If Times is the NYTimes, I'd have flagged it had I seen it. It has a paywall, and I don't want inflammatory off-topic political stories on HN that I can't read.
As for substantial discussion, it'll take a few days before anything can really be considered. As scandals go, 'generals sell nuclear tech to countries enemies' doesn't scan as very believable, even for corrupt officials. Give 'em a chance to respond and see what gets said.
Comments
The Times submission around this was flagged. Considering this particular issue actually does have a few overlaps with tech, given the nature of Saudi investment/Softbank and the tech transfer (which often stays on the front page when it’s China), as well as nuclear (which also tends to stay on the front page) - it would be nice if this isn’t flagged and there could be a substantial discussion on it.
I've seen lots of unflagged articles on here about world events which aren't necessarily related to tech, and given that this is a .gov website, there shouldn't be (as much) concern about it being politically charged.
It's a news release from a representative's office. Surely a news article from a reputable outlet would be less "politically charged" (whatever that means)?
This is from the House Oversight committee, a group made up of a bipartisan group of congressmen whose job is to oversee, investigate and report on the actions of the executive branch.
Yes, it is from the committee, but after watching GOP-controlled House committees operate for the past eight years, it's hard to claim that they can't be partisan. I'm not claiming that it's not accurate (I'd expect it to be much more factual than anything the GOP would put out), but I'd expect a well-researched news article (with actual competent journalism—not just both-sides he-said-she-said garbage) to be less "political".
Because government (in this case, a committee of the House of Representatives) is apolitical?
If Times is the NYTimes, I'd have flagged it had I seen it. It has a paywall, and I don't want inflammatory off-topic political stories on HN that I can't read.
As for substantial discussion, it'll take a few days before anything can really be considered. As scandals go, 'generals sell nuclear tech to countries enemies' doesn't scan as very believable, even for corrupt officials. Give 'em a chance to respond and see what gets said.