> That is explicitly an Artemis mission purpose.

Where does it say that?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40412271

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

> Did you just compare modern art and rock and roll to the few letter “tag” sprayed in 10 seconds again and again hundreds of time throughout a city?

Yes! That's what rock'n'roll is at its core, three chords (or fewer) and the truth, and that's how it was characterized - artless noise, etc.

  People try to put us d-down
  Just because we get around
  Things they do look awful c-c-cold
  I hope I die before I get old

> Because that’s what 99.99% of graffiti is, simple tags and doodles [0][1] anyone can make.

It's just noise, I tell you!

Now get off my lawn geezer! :p :)

I'm not certain those were flaws in forsight, or necessarily even in hindsight. Regardless, those leaders did not preach or lead on the basis of fear, hatred, an ignorance.

That's not MAD as I understand it: The essential challenge of international relations is to create non-escalatory situations - situations where parties won't be compelled or tempted to engage in a escalatory cycle that lead to warfare, which is often unwanted by all parties to it but unavoidable. Obviously, that can't be allowed to happen with strategic nuclear weapons.

Parties that are 'scared to death' tend to escalate; they are human; they panic, they imagine things and act on their fears. It's the warmongers and basement generals who imagine 'scared to death' tactics.

MAD was designed to create a stable, non-escalatory, trusted situation. There were treaties limiting weapons and their deployment, hotlines, verification. Weapons were spread out, including in the triad (at sea, in air, and on land), to reduce the ability of the enemy to knock them all out, and thus to disincentivize a surprise attack.

MAD is only used with nuclear weapons afaik, and only with Russia and now, probably, with China.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40396903

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

It's a struggle for everyone to accept different perspectives on art and aesthetics, but we need to accept that others' perspectives exist and are as legitimate as our own.

The buildings have a lot more impact then the graffiti, and arguably should have more community voices involved.

> Most graffiti is just trash

People say that about modern art, and about that crazy 'rock'n'roll'!

Let's apply some strict law-and-order to the wealthy and powerful, to corporations, to government officials. Then to all adults. Then I think it would be reasonable for kids with spray cans.

I know it's commonplace, but let's consider whether extreme expression has any rational substance to it, whether it's somehow more meaningful than an argument with actual reasons.

Outrage is a weapon. Do we want it to be? I think (apologies to the parent comment) it should be disqualifying, shunned, excluded. It's a demonstration that they have no reasoned basis and will not contribute.

As usual, the answer is found by examining assumptions: 1) It's somehow bad, and 2) People strongly want it removed. (And by accepting those two assumptions as true, and it's also true that the street art remains, that argument infers despair.)

I and many people don't think it's Bad (avoiding a specific definition, an endless discussion). I don't mean it's always Good or never Bad, but generally IMHO it ranges from easily ignored to decent to some really inspiring stuff.

And I find it generally inspiring that some kids have the spirit, creativity, initiative, and determination to do it; to express themselves and not be suppressed by society. Adults have so much agency; it's great to see kids seize some, and in a harmless way (they aren't injuring people, risking anything, etc.). I see the suppression of graffiti as telling kids to be 'seen and not heard'. People embrace billionaires who break rules and then kill and impovrish on a mass scale; all these kids are doing is painting something.

I'd almost advocate that kids have free reign to paint public property (that would seem to get out of control, and any announced limit may be an invitation to break it). It's their city too, and adults should have to live with what the kids have to say. (Still - how could that work? Any undecorated or unfinished surface?)

I understand you may not agree; we need to find a balance.

You may see it differently, but what you see isn't "what it is", it's just your perspective.