We've all seen it all over the news in recent years (decades, for those of who've been around long enough) ... people who are originally pretty sure they're right about something, tend to "double-down" on their convictions in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary ... and then double-down again.

Admitting you're wrong about something important, when you were pretty sure you were right, is just effin' hard.

Anybody here used to think climate change was a crock? What changed your mind?

I normally never take reports of ufos seriously, but major news outlets are reporting on videos taken by Navy pilots and the news anchors seem to take it as a joke. Even if these ufos are just high tech government drones or weather balloons, you'd think people would at least be curious in finding out what these things are.

Around the office normally I hear chatter about the news and current events, but nothing about these ufos. Nobody brings them up. On discussion forums, talk about the ufos seems really sparse as well. Even subreddits dedicated to ufos seem to not care very much about these videos being on the mainstream news. Now with legitimate proof that there is something strange in the air, why does nobody seem to care?

What are the leading explanations to what these things are? One explanation I've heard for at least one of the videos is that it's a stationary weather balloon that only appears to be moving due to the camera on the plane moving. I can accept this explanation for that video, but what about the other videos? And what about the navy pilot testimonies? Is this all just a publicity stunt for History Channel's new show?

Probably I'm not alone in such situation when a good person you know believes in something really harmless but still ridiculous in the depth of your mind.

For example, that astrological sign seriously defines compatibility of people, or WTC was demolished intentionally in the US, or GMO is bad because in some experiment rats reportedly stopped reproducing and therefore someone wants to shrink certain human populations by popularizing GMO.

None of such beliefs actually do something directly harmful but sometimes just the fact people you know believe that is almost disgusting. Any proof would be discarded as an "official", biased one, profitable for those who have money and power.

What should be done in such a situation? What would you do if your otherwise perfect friend seriously considered Earth flat?

There was a story posted to Hacker News, The Return of the Super-Elite from Jacobin magazine. It was on the front page for a little bit of time. I refreshed and it was on the 2nd page.

5 hours later and it's down to #113, page 4. It has 88 points. The second youngest submission on page 4 is 16 hours old. On page 3, the youngest item is 6 hours old, and has only 7 points. So this article is newer, has a respectable amount of points but within 5 hours has been relegated to page 4, whereas an item that has fewer points and is 1 hour older is sitting on page 3.

edit: the rank keeps dropping, when I first wrote this post it was at #111, then #112, and when I submitted it was at #113, I just refreshed and it's at #114. Other submissions near the range of points and hours are ranking on page 1. On page 5 all items are from 1, 2 or 3 days ago.

I've noticed that any pro-unionization talk seems to disappear much more quickly than other stories.

So let's get our tinfoil hats on and ask is Hacker News suppressing leftist articles or suppressing articles of a certain type altogether?

Or maybe it's just a conspiracy of a bad algorithm for determining where submissions rank?

The show premiered on Audience Network a couple of weeks ago.

Seems to be a classical CIA show, more in line with 24 than Homeland, I think. So if you miss the CTU, you might like this. It's not as fast-paced so far though.

Dialogue is acceptable and acting is generally good. Nothing spectacular visually.

There was some amount of conflict and the tension builds up during the episode, with the mandatory cliffhanger ending.

Nothing disruptive in general, but entertaining and with maybe some potential.

The main character is too much of a hero (too much of a good guy) to be able to achieve some depth, IMO. He's too smart, too honest, too humble, too attractive, etc. That's my biggest grip once I accepted the show doesn't seem to want to create anything new, but was certainly watchable. I'm gonna watch the second episode now and see if it gets better

I'd say 7/10, but maybe it's just because I usually enjoy the genre. So maybe 6/10 trying to be more objective.