Daily Mail is not news or anything at all other than an insult to anyone's intelligence.

E: why are you almost the only person sharing stuff from DM?

Nah, I'm not unhappy that SO burned. Either the platform became a community-owned, not-for-profit, volunteer-driven project whose sole purpose was to be useful, or it was going to become yet another enshittified platform - which is exactly what happened. In that sense, it deserved to disappear. We're worse off without it, I agree, but we were heading in that direction anyway.

In 2 out of 3 cases, the responses I received to my questions were poor, wrong, snarky, or generally unhelpful.

I still believe a platform like that would be useful: something closer to MDN Web Docs, but with a Q&A mechanism. It should exist as public-interest technical infrastructure funded by govs, not as another asset to be squeezed until the community that made it useful has nothing left to give and everyone was worse off apart from the owners.

That's so unambitious, I'd argue.

> In 1940, the federal tax rate on income over $200,000 started at 66 percent. By 1944, the top tax rate on all income over $200,000 — about $3.4 million in today’s dollars — had jumped to 94 percent.

https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once...

It's mighty difficult to refrain from calling out the naïve who kept criticising unions only hours ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48222241

> On paper, meritocracy sounds great.

In reality, meritocracy was a slur word. It was coined in 1956 to describe a farcically unequal state that no one in their right mind would want to live in: https://archive.discoversociety.org/2018/10/02/meritocracy-a...

Meritocracy is still a slur word by the left, that never changed, the left doesn't like meritocracy and the right likes it. So a left winger writing about the horrors of meritocracy doesn't mean that meritocracy is bad.

I find the left/right approach altogether ridiculous for this, it's but a spurious oversimplification which usually shows lack of understanding for the topic discussed. In this particular case, it also shows that you didn't bother to read what meritocracy actually is, since you claim, against the very inventor of the word, that it's a good thing without producing any evidence or reasoning.

I'm not suggesting that this is the only reason why more anger is not visible, but surely it must account for a degree of it: https://novaramedia.com/2020/06/20/why-does-the-police-exist...

> Wherever one looks at the origins of the police (and prisons), one finds they “develop hand in hand with social inequality and hierarchy”, as Robert Reiner, the UK’s leading scholar of police, explains. The police is, he writes, a “means for the emergence and protection of more centralised and dominant class and state systems”.

Timely and much needed, I argue.

When publishers complain it's never to protect the authors or journalists, but a specific (extractive) business model. Not that I side with Common Crawl on this one.

Dystopian stuff.

Good point. HN automatically strips certain words from the titles and I wasn't snappy enough to catch it on time.

Huh, didn't realize it did that- weird feature to have if it's automatic imo.

I think you can edit it, as the poster.

Only if it's done in a specific timespan, like 10 minutes or less. After that, it can't be edited any longer.

hey dang add a "these"