I really don't understand how this even gets upvoted on HN. It's barely worthy of mention in conventional news and I live in South Africa so if anyone should find it relevant I should!
> I really don't understand how this even gets upvoted on HN.
Upvoter here. I upvoted because:
- I had no idea such a thing as an Afican Union existed. It seemed like a big thing so it's good to know about this (though the comment thread gave me a reality check and explained why I hadn't heard from it yet)
- From the article, it did seem like any African person can now move freely to other African countries. I hadn't thought about it explicitly, but I guess that subconsciously, I expected it to be living and working too, since that's how I know it (as a European). Turns out that I should have read the whole article instead of the first few paragraphs.
- I read below the picture: "Idriss ... kissed his passport when he received it. ... 'I feel deeply and proudly like a true son of Africa after receiving this" which is of course what a political leader would say, but it still sounds nice and makes me feel good about the progress of welfare and happiness in the world.
After reading the comment thread, I got quite the reality check (as mentioned), but I'd still upvote. African citizens are planned to get this passport too from 2020 onwards I read, which is nice to read and good to know. I know very little about Africa because the news hardly ever mentions it (aside from "hunger percentage X changed"), which is bad. It's good to learn more.
HN is not my only news source, but you're close: tech news is most of my news source. I hear/watch/read other stuff maybe weekly.
The thing is, I see no big advantage in knowing there has been another shooting somewhere. Enough of that and I'd have enough hindsight bias not to want to be in crowds anymore. Knowing this doesn't make me feel good or improve my life in any way.
Of course it's important to know in general what's going on (e.g. brexit), but I'll hear that from enough people around me. (In fact I hear every shooting anyway from people around me, I just don't learn every single detail unless I choose something is worth looking up.)
As for the African Union specifically though, I'm pretty sure I would have heard it mentioned in passing if it was a really important things. From what I read in comments here, it doesn't do much anyway, and from yearly reports from e.g. the Gates Foundation I would have heard about it if the AU played a big role.
Your comment leans towards a personal attack so I guess that's why you were downvoted, but that's not entirely fair: you do make a fair point and I don't actually take it personally.
That's really not an appropriate tone to take with someone who learned something new. There are probably lots of things that you don't know that are obvious to other people.
I think archaic forex regulations are more of a blocker than free travel but what I meant is It can't be hard to agree to let diplomats travel easily. The impact is almost immaterial.
"That picture of the guy kissing the passport? I bet that wouldn't be happening if it were a meaningless non-milestone."
Somehow I doubt that that individual has any trouble obtaining whatever documentation is necessary to travel on official business. Short of some sort of political-spat between countries, all approvals for diplomats is probably rubber-stamped as soon as the details are confirmed/verified.
