https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sail...

> Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

> Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.

> Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.

> "In this video I'm going to try fusing two bullets together but uh, I don't want to 'break the internet' with clickbait so actually 30 minutes of this video will be about me talking about the safety measures I took."

[Spoilers: the bullets didn't fuse.]

It's fine I guess, his videos are usually still worth watching. I just wish the youtube system was better at rewarding concise videos that are as long as they need to be, not rushed or stretched.

And you're forgetting the U-2 and SR-71, which lacked full blown RCS reduction geometry but were still fitted with the black RAM coating (the SR-71 also had some stealth geometry; that was the purpose of the chines.)

"Too dangerous" obviously includes robberies and assaults, but you've neatly excluded those to narrow the focus of the conversation to murder. Where is this idea coming from, that violent crime doesn't count unless somebody is murdered (or specifically shot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36374483)?

This attitude exemplifies the problem; that all manner of crime should tolerated from homeless unless they shoot or murder somebody. Only then does it rise to your concern. And in the case of tlogan's comment that I just linked to, even somebody getting stabbed to death doesn't count because they weren't shot. This is how you get situations as described by seanmcdirmid here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36374451 Crazy guy known to be violent is tolerated by local authorities because he hasn't yet killed anybody. No big deal until he murders somebody, only then do people care. This is why the electorate of these cities is the root of the problem, because the electorate don't give a shit about the crime until somebody gets killed.

And of course there is a lot of D, people denying there's a problem at all. The "this is fine" response.

There's a popular narrative of "linux enthusiasts hate anything that's new"; you hear this a lot from people defending Pulseaudio and SystemD from "the trolls". It was never true. People love new things when the new thing solves their problems, and hate the new thing when it introduces new problems. The haters narrative is little more than cope; a way for the authors of buggy software to rationalize the negative response to their software.

"But it is worth mentioning that we are not at Union Square or the Westfield Mall this morning because we have been advised it is simply too dangerous to be there at this hour"

The whyevolutionistrue rebuttal is insubstantial, it doesn't address this at all.

Incidentally the new B-21 apparently won't be black. Maybe they have a new RAM paint formulation that doesn't force the choice of black.

It certainly can't help that Spinlaunch can't put anything into space.

So we can now have both. Africans can have their satellite internet, and astronomers can see their dwarf stars. Both should be satisfied so what are you so bitter about?

That change (arguably itself unnecessary) was made in response an incident that happened shortly before that change was made. This new change is being made in response to... that same incident 20 years ago, which hasn't repeated.

The tiger doesn't exist.

I do not intent to persuade you that these viewpoints are compelling and truthful, because that's beyond the point. I'm not arguing that the above arguments are subjectively correct, only that they are coherent. Whether or not you find these arguments persuasive, they are coherent. Whether or not you think they have the basic facts of the situation correct, they are still coherent. Maybe you think lurking readers shouldn't count; that's a legitimate value which others may legitimately disagree with, and depending on what your values are you come to different conclusions. That doesn't mean people who think lurkers should count are being incoherent. Coherence does not mean subjectively correct.

> Go create the sub you want. The community will follow you, right?

I stopped using reddit 10 years ago, it can burn for all I care. Stop trying to psychoanalyze people (badly.)

If admins lift the blackouts and people go back to using the subreddits, then obviously those people were not committed to not using reddit. This is simply common sense. The answer to this problem is for you to stop using reddit, then reddit's problems won't be your problems.

You (user) can most readily address it by not using reddit. That is the ultimate answer to all of this. If you don't use reddit, then problems with reddit aren't your problems anymore.