Posted by lukeigel 12/20/2025
Please AMA!
It feels like this is a big smoke screen used by the current admin, first to be reelected, and now to distract people from what they are actually doing (like repeating they decreased drugs price by 600%, that they ended dozens of wars while dropping bombs daily all around the World...).
It also looks like it allows everyone to peek in other's people lives, which feels quite disturbing. Sure, some of them were/are terrible people. But there's also the victims here. Furthermore, is it how justice should work? Share everything to the world, and let everyone make their own judgement based on what they see?
Is there going to be some actual outcome? Both for the victims and for their offenders?
Or is it just a show where everyone can see them as detective/judge?
Just to add a bit more context: after years of trials, one of our former President finally went to jail for a few weeks. And now, they're invited by media all over the country so they can complain about how unfair it was, they published a book about it, sold in the tens of thousands, their son is the new TV's favorite...
So I'm wondering: is it actual justice at work, or just a distraction while nothing change and nobody is actually held accountable?
Rich people are hiding their crimes against children with corruption. This law seeks to reveal this corruption. Why is that wrong?
>Share everything to the world, and let everyone make their own judgement based on what they see?
What's the alternative to this? They don't share all the information with the world and we're expected to believe their evaluation of the evidence?
I suggest you post your e-mail login details and here and a dump of the contents of your phone, then all of HN can all check through and see what crimes you're guilty of.
I'm sure you'll say you haven't committed any crimes, but why should we be expected to believe you if you don't share all your information with the world?
Well yes, however there was an orchestrated effort to convince people that the system is not working. That effort was successful enough to generate public interest we observe now. Beyond morbid curiosity, there is a belief that the exposure may force the system to do now what it was supposed to do in the first place
Are you trying to say that these documents shouldn’t be public because it violates someone’s right to privacy?
It's not the same to ask for public disclosure for people likely to be involved in a crime, for which there is at least some initial (albeit inconclusive) evidence than it is to ask the same of a random person for which there is no evidence at all.
1 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405
Haha I was wondering where this other side of the pond was. This leaves no doubt. Quelle indignité.
For others: it's Sarkozy they are referring to, who was sentenced to 5 years of prison but spent only 20 days in it. He's free until his next trial. For having colluded with terrorists.
It's simple really, but if course it's not as outrageous and can't be used as rage bait
(see also: the rates of homosexuality among homophobes)
Someone wrote in Le Monde, "it's like a man writing a feminist essay because he emptied the dish washer once", and that sums it up pretty well.
Maybe it's possible. Berlusconi was brought down by his habit of young women eventually hitting one under 18.
Please American people don't do the same mistakes as we did. It's like watching a remake (or a parody) of the same horror movie.
Andrew Windsor needs to be extradited to the US and face trial.
We need a referendum about whether we want child rape to be a tool of US policy. I say no.
Reciprocity is a thing...
Epstein was running what he said was legal tax avoidance system for his clients.
I'm not saying they were breaking any laws in it, but Epstein is a dodgy guy (also he used to be involved in IIRC a Ponzi scheme and was previously sacked from a big firm - red flags galore with this guy) and the scheme worked off asset prices and trusts.
If a bunch of billionaires could manipulate asset prices (selling illiquid assets like mansions and artwork between each other and their trusts) I suspect they could really bring down their tax bills. This would be illegal (I think) but you'd need to untangle a large web of transactions to prove it.
Yes. IMHO, the parts that they really don't want to come out are the financial ties. It's the connections of money (and power and influence) that is being covered up, more then the child sex crimes that are now known.
More importantly, you seem to know an awful lot more than anybody else right now, or how would you be so certain?
Do you know Berlusconi, from the Italian government? He was the Italian version of Donald Trump, and he was involved in a lot of scandals at the time, including being involved with the mafia and, you guessed it, underage girls.
Yeah this is insightful. Another dictator went to jail in 1920s for staging a coup and used that time for writing his manifesto and getting sympathy from his followers. Some times (often these days) politics just lives on a plane outside the justice system. And it is really creepy.
I think your underlying question comes down to a relationship with the media, accountability and prosperity
By distraction, I think that’s media driven, can be ignored. State actions are transparent enough that you dont need the media to tell you what to pay attention to
In some religious dogma, Prosperity is tied to good deeds, conformity to what collaborative for society. With the expected contrary being suffering.
Seen as “Prosperity Preaching” in Christianity, the concept of karma outside of Abrahamic religions. This is a fiction that has never matched the real world so once that expectation is dropped it will be easier to navigate the world. There is no relationship to financial reward from conformity to a social collaborative behavior, in fact its mostly the opposite, maximum extraction is a core tenant of our system and what is incentivized. If the market is interested in something you can earn from it
And this goes finally into the relationship with accountability. The justice system acts on the rails of its own mechanizations. Its a perversion to want that to include total ostracization, total financial distress for an indeterminate time, I actually dont know the limits of what people want. It seems more so related to how it affects poorer people that way while wealthier and savvier people are exempt from distress, but it shouldnt be the case for poorer people either.
History shows that it never happens in America and politicians always drop the "it's time for our nation to heal" line, but if the pendulum swings as far in the other direction as it did in the 2024 election, maybe things will be different. And the only hope of that happening is for people to stay pissed.
One thing I will say is the outrage about this has lasted longer than I initially imagined. America has had a lot of "this controversy won't be forgotten!" stuff that nobody remembers 2 months later. In contrast, I feel like this has been steadily ramping up and maintaining some degree of inertia for 2 years. Will it burn out by 2028? Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. It was washed out of the news by trans people playing sports and that was somehow the biggest issue in the world. 2028 will undoubtedly have some weird "problem" that we can't yet imagine.
> like repeating they decreased drugs price by 600%
The NYT and other media outlets like to point out that this claim is mathematically impossible. However, “cut prices by 600%” is understood perfectly well by most people (but not pedants) to mean “we undid price hikes of 600%.”
I suspect that this phrasing was chosen as a “wedge” to drive home to the MAGA faithful that the news media is biased against them.
If I advertise that my store "cut prices by 50%" but the prices are actually only 33% lower (which is the same as undoing a 50% price hike), would it be pedantic to call me out on my bullshit?
Yes, I’d say.
It’s the same as the informal usage of “X times smaller” to describe scaling by 1/X. The idiom generally isn’t used unless X > 1. (The exception might be when several values of X are reported together. Then one might say “0.74 times smaller” to maintain parallel form with nearby “4 times smaller” and similar claims.)
> We cut prices by 50%! Before $30, now $20
Would it be pedantic to call that price cut bullshit?
To answer your question, no, it would not be pedantic to question that claim. It conforms to no common usage that I am aware of.
It conforms to:
> “cut prices by 600%” is understood perfectly well by most people (but not pedants) to mean “we undid price hikes of 600%.”
which I agree is no common usage that I am aware of
That is, expressions like "twice as slow/thin/short/..." or "2x as slow/thin/short/..." or "200% as slow/thin/short/..." have a well-established usage that is understood to mean "half as fast/thick/tall/..."
But "50% as slow/thin/short/..." or "half as slow/thin/short/..." have no such established usage.
For some evidence to support my claim, please see this 2008 discussion on Language Log:
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=463#:~:text=A%20fur...
Since HN has a tendency to trim URLs and might prevent this link from taking you to the relevant portion of a rather lengthy article, I'll quote the salent bits:
"A further complexity: in addition to the N times more/larger than usage, there is also a N times less/lower than [to mean] '1/Nth as much as' usage"
"[About this usage, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage reports that] times has now been used in such constructions for about 300 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever been misunderstood."
> For some evidence to support my claim
Please note that the 2008 discussion you linked does not support your claim in any way, so 50% does conform.
I believe that the history of English language usage is replete with examples such as "X times less than" when X > 1, but similar constructions for X <= 1 do not appear with appreciable frequency.
In any case, I think that continuing our conversation is unlikely to be productive, so this will be my last reply.
I will just say in closing that our conversation is a good example of why the MAGA folks have probably chosen phrasing such as this.
> only pedants misunderstand this, here's a 2 decade old source that doesn't support my claim, I rather not continue the conversation
so it was never meant to be productive
All his political/business allies won't easily switch as they stay his connections and money, not his clean image.
It just feels like a real-life reality show to keep the news flowing and people just enough bewildered and curious to keep coming back for more. Basically the perfect material for a while.
Especially with all the hyper redacted parts, groups can start literally reading between the lines and make unfounded allegations to create even more clicks.
I think it's what happens when you cultivate a conspiratorial fanbase: eventually the conspiracies will mention you.
I think of JD Vance, when Trump’s Epstein birthday card had been described but not released, he scoffed they didn’t provide an image. Weeks later, we had an image released by Congress, so then JD Vance tweaked his arguments a bit but still denies basically everything. The evidence he requested did not change his mind anyway. Trump’s supporters, for the most part, will say it’s AI, faked images, paid liars, mentally ill accusers, Trump haters, fake news, Trump was only there to inform on Democrats, it’s not what it looks like, the media is lying about girls’ birthdates, etc etc before they’ll ever admit he’s a sick man. If they wanted to believe that, the evidence is already there.
Personally I have a fair amount of doubt that he has committed a crime against a minor, but he is obviously lecherous and well below the supposed moral sexual standards of many of his supporters. It should not matter to them whether a 60+ year old married man only peeks and banters about young girls or if he has actually touched them. If they’re still around, it will take a lot to snap them out of it.
[1] I know he didn’t actually say that 13 is okay or whatever, but what kind of pervert or fool jumps all the way down to 12 when asked? Way below the lowest age of consent in the States. This should be disqualifying on the grounds of horrendously bad judgment to phrase it that way in public, let alone what it may or may not reveal about his criminality.
I think Trump made the Epstein conspiracy such a thing, it's now hard to disentangle from the minds of his MAGA supporters. All it takes is for some of his political rivals (from within the party) to fan the flames.
I'm not sure about what Trump actually did, and we have no solid proof. I can only guess, judging from how the man behaves, and his general attitudes toward lying and women.
Agreed on the general principle of building your movement on conspiracy theories of the elite and then becoming elite. The situation is even worse for him; he was already friends with the subject of the conspiracy theory long before the public at large even knew about it, and then by some combination of bad luck and hubris he let the party chase the conspiracy. We’ll see if there’s anything bad for him in there that sees the light of day, and what his opposition makes of it.
1) There is 0 non circumstantial evidence that Trump had a sexual encounter with a minor. There is 0 evidence (circumstantial or not) that there is any prepubescent children involved.
2) Calling anyone who voted (past tense) for Trump a "pedophile supporter".
Combining these two things togtheter seems pretty obvious why Maga supporters dismiss most of what the public outrage, in fact they will dig their heels in even harder since the "other side" is just attacking them personally.
Remember that even less than "circumstantial evidence" is what fuels 90% of Trump's bold assertions. And they lap it up. Even now they are trying to make this about Bill Clinton! (Can you imagine what would have happened if Clinton was Epstein's friend but Trump wasn't? Or if Hillary was in some photos? I can guarantee there'd be no redactions at all).
So now MAGA voters cannot complain when Trump is the target of unconfirmed rumors.
And indeed, even a portion of MAGA is susceptible to this particular scandal: Epstein. They had a minor falling out with their leader over this!
I do agree attacking all of MAGA is a counterproductive tactic though, because it puts them on the defensive. Mounting evidence against Trump without attacking his voters is more sensible.
I recently watched a documentary where elites from beginning of the 20th century were also portrayed. Self-portrayed as Philanthropists. Moral bankruptcy became obvious, although in other manifestations such as shooting members of worker unions. And the US government did something in form of the New Deal, splitting monopolies and other policies.
In an optimistic scenario I’d expect something similar. New ways to hold elites accountable and keeping extreme differences in wealth in check.
I'm building an analytics SaaS with a similar stack and this validates our architecture choices. A few questions:
1. How are you handling ISR vs full static generation? You mentioned migrating to generateStaticParams - did you pre-generate all email pages or use on-demand ISR?
2. Did you hit any Vercel function limits with the email processing, or is everything cached aggressively enough that it doesn't matter?
3. R2's free egress is a game-changer - are you using Cloudflare's image transformations or handling resizing client-side?
The caching strategy here is the real MVP. Most people underestimate how far good caching with Next.js can take you before you need Redis or more complex infrastructure.
>i want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked is trump.. virignia spent hours at my house with him,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75 % there
Hooo boy
(lot of bad quality ones though)
- JPhotos: https://www.jmail.world/photos
- JDrive: https://www.jmail.world/drive
- JAmazon: https://www.jmail.world/jamazon
are you talking about OpenGraph metadata or something else that we can fix?
It was stupid to accept the gift of young women
Stupid to promise to release the data
Really stupid to partially release
Unfathomably stupid to then try and pull some back
The media smell blood in the water, this is going to be a feeding frenzy