here it is:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/demographics-us-military

this is upper military leadership. Black individuals account for 6.5%-9% of general officers/admirals, senior female leaders (colonels, generals, and admirals) represent less than 5% of all senior military leadership.

> 60% of any cohort being "black or female" sounds like the population average or below.

doing the math this means a Black or female senior military leader has 8.5-11 times higher chance of being fired by Pete Hegseth compared to a white male counterpart

look this is the thing with racism - racism to the degree "races" are fit (randomly, or forcibly) into different ethnic / cultural / etc categories (e.g. "in-groups" and "out groups") is largely, due to the in-group/out-group differential, a natural tendency in humans that has to be actively worked against (hence the term "anti-racism"). Nobody who has grown up in modern society with extreme separation of "races" / cultures into disparate groups can really say "oh I'm not a racist" amongst people who study this at an anthropoligical, sociological, or evolutionary level, biases towards those in societally placed in "out groups" have to be critically challenged on a regular basis.

This is why it's not enough to be some MAGA who says, "oh Im not a racist! i just agree with trump's policy", they of course have no idea how their words and actions are linked to racism because they've never looked at it (and by my experience with Trump voters, they angrily, adamantly refuse to even look at contrarian evidence to their belief systems if you try to show them, much less have the critical thinking skills to actually understand them). They are marinating in distrust and contempt of "the other" (if you know me in RL I'll introduce you to people who wont listen to a single fact you give them if it was not on FOX news).

> People care about themselves first and foremost, it's a necessity.

they care about their in-group. Countries like those in Scandanavia have developed very deep social welfare systems largely because of their history (now being challenged by immigration) of being culturally homogeneous meant that everyone trusted each other implicitly and had no issue with their government dollars being used to help their neighbors [1] (this is a really interesting article btw). A diverse society has a steeper hill to climb in establishing social trust between different cultural / ethnic groups.

[1] https://trendsresearch.org/insight/the-paradox-of-right-wing...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/03/pentagon-pet...

> Since Trump returned to office in January last year, Pete Hegseth, the rumbustious defense secretary who has made it his mission to remake a military ethos he denounced as “woke”, has fired or forcibly retired 24 generals and senior commanders, with no performance-related reason given.

> About 60% have been Black or female, an approach seemingly driven by the administration’s proclaimed onslaught against “DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] hires”.

so..it's not "racist" when it's "oh all those Black men and women are obviously DEI hires", is that the logic?

here's some basic reading on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

If there is one view that ties them all together, it's racism (and misogyny). Loud and clear.

If any president of any party posted a tweet like [1] or [2], I would never ever answer "I approve of the job theyre doing" in a poll.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/23/us/politics/trump-china-i...

[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/news-wrap-trumps-racist-so...

> The majority of people aren't racist nor do they have a problem with government helping them out.

40% is ....not a majority

the current POTUS has a 37% approval rating and this is considered to be historically low, due to wars, corruption, etc.

but even with all of that corruption and failure, 37% of surveyed adults, *still approve*. This includes his frequent, deeply racist tirades on Twitter. They approve!

you can't claim an invention is invalid because there are no "studies" that show such an invention has already existed and succeeded, you'd by definition never invent anything!

"but it's a real typewritten letter! you dont understand!"

yeah but you didn't snail mail it to all of us, you or someone put it on the internet on a webpage. if you can scan a letter as a JPG and scp it to a server, you can run an OCR and put alt text in.

If you don't like my posts, the downmod button is right there. I can otherwise do without the moralizing lecture which is definitely something nobody wants here. Did you just search for "AI" posts that needed policing to even find this totally dead thread ? Talk about HN being a "job"

after he literally single-handedly ruined the product by personally censoring the editorial team and/or firing large numbers of journalists on multiple, extremely high-profile PR-disastering occasions [1] [2]

from that perspective, Bezos seems perfectly content to weather PR disasters from his companies and drape them in bizarre rationalizations.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...

[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-60-000-washington-post-2...

a gemini query is like a google search with natural language embedded. ill do my "google search" and just rewrite the text next time, ta

unless google searches are also illegal for hacker news commenting

> If rekabis cared about what an LLM had to say they could have done that themselves.

I post stories here hoping for just that human interaction you speak of, plenty of scientists here who could have added to the topic, but none did. Doomerists are not typically interested in researching their claims, it would make for much less sensationalistic claims. From my own human perspective, the best I could offer without research is "that looks like a really ridiculous claim". I think a researched claim is a lot more valuable here.

oh heck here's it's response to the Venus part:

"Climate scientists and astrophysicists have looked into this extensively. The definitive scientific consensus is that a Venus scenario is physically impossible on Earth from burning fossil fuels. To trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that vaporizes the oceans (like Venus), Earth would need to receive much more solar radiation than it currently does. Even if we burned every single ounce of fossil fuel on the planet and triggered all feedback loops, the Earth would become devastatingly hot and hostile to human civilization, but it would eventually stabilize. It would not turn into Venus."

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48312192

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48284218

Points: 3

# Comments: 6

I've no reason to doubt this is absolutely true.

that's not what they're gonna do though....

> The region has “crossed the point of no return,” the paper’s authors wrote, adding New Orleans “may well be surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico before the end of this century.”

sorry, Gulf of what ? /s