Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

no not really, here is an example: the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. It was serious, there were six deaths, but it wasn't a catastrophe. I was living in NYC at that time, and for me, I realized there were terrorists trying to blow up parts of New York City and quite frankly it scared the crap out of me from that point on how insecure things were, how easy it would be for the WTC (a building I worked in a few times) to be attacked again. But this was not a very widespread sentiment. The problem (terrorists targeting NYC) was there, but the catastrophic outcome was not.

Then of course terrorists from roughly the same organization tried again on the same building eight years later and it was the largest attack in US history by orders of magnitude. Terrorism proceeded to become the key societal and political issue pretty much for a whole generation.

The problem was there for a long time, the hazard was there for a long time, but it's only when we get the catastrophic outcome; e.g. the Uber car actually killed someone, the plane actually crashed, the WTC was actually destroyed, it's largely rational that that is when lots of people care. There's nothing unusual or hypocritical about it.

You might not think the outcome of this election was catastrophic but the reporters who cover the government and the white house do. They know the norms and customs that have been in place for many decades and they see that they've been ripped to shreds in just a little over a year. They know this is a catastrophe and they are rightfully trying to shine a light on every possible thing that we can get at to both patch the situation and hopefully prevent it from happening again.



Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: