We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines, which state that this site is not to be used for political or ideological battles—let alone national and racial ones.
If you want to commit to keeping such poison off this site in the future, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
Anyone who understand Bengali should listen to the "Rohingya" language. The similarities are unmistakable, even if you can't understand either.
If they really have been in that area since the 8th century - an assertion made by Soros' HRW, and mindlessly repeated by the media - you'd expect the language to diverge a lot more.
They are clearly not native to Myanmar.
Also, it's conveniently forgotten that they triggered the latest spurt of violence by attacking Buddhist and Hindu citizens.
It's odd how suddenly this is the latest humanitarian crisis.
Nothing to do with oil and gas pipelines, I'm sure. Unlike Syria, Iraq, Libya and so on.
Call me cynical but I don't see the international community - code for US interests - caring about people in resource poor regions.
Wonder what would happen if NK suddenly was found to have oil fields ...
That's a very weak argument. Eg., the Catalan language is more closely related to French than Spanish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo-Romance_languages). But the Catalans are certainly "native" to Spain, in that they've lived within the current Spanish borders since before Spain existed. And obviously, someone not being "native" to an area doesn't justify killing or terrorizing them.
Clearly you haven't lived in close proximity to these people.
They trickle in, respect no boundaries and no laws.
Now if they integrated and contributed to the regions culture and economy, that would go a long way towards their acceptance. But that's against the tenents of their religion/culture/ideology and it's demonstrated by their violence.
I'd quote Karl Popper on tolerating the intolerant, but it would be another "weak argument."
You can't drag people who insist on living by pre-medieval norms into the 21st century.
I agree. Not only is it the fastest, it's also the most reliable. I have Firefox thrashing about more often than not, and I refuse to use Chrome or its google infected variants.
Brave seems promising but doesn't yet have extensions.
I might have forgiven them if they had gone USB C.
But they launched the 7 without a jack and the latest MacBooks without USB A so their latest phone couldn't connect to the latest MacBook without a single.
I know - lightning to USB A makes sense for legacy laptops but still. It was a bizarre decision, one that I doubt Jobs would have made.
> The New York Times reporters acknowledge that it is uncertain whether the problems were caused by Kremlin-directed hacking or a more innocuous mishap like software malfunctions or human error. Furthermore, an NSA analysis was unable to determine if the Russian hackers were successful in compromising the election vendors or what specific data had been accessed.
I need a little more than that before I get all riled up about the Red Scare.
The NYT had been quite biased for a long time. I think the last time they did any real journalism was during the first major Wikileaks story - the one where Greenwald played a big part.
Agreed, it usually takes less than a minute to figure that out.
Albeit, I usually don't ban it unless I find them hopelessly close minded when it comes to debates. For other subreddits, I follow them once I have seen them enough times to like them.
Say we had a Twitter or Reddit but without the folks who eat babies. Wouldn't those still be super useful for the majority who don't eat babies? Or would they be worthless because there is some limit on the content?
Get ready for your comment to be down voted into oblivion, the usual reaction by ignorant SJWs. This place is getting to be as toxic as Reddit.