I don't mean to question your basis for your assessment because your comment is otherwise wonderful and agreeable, but why it is that every time an article is written that impugns a government's use of a particular technology, it is regarded as "utterly political?"
Even if this article weren't about flashbangs, whose particulars are examined in the article from a perspective consistent with the norms of this website, the drug war, as a exercise of prohibition policy, is largely on-topic here per se because it represents a pain-point (and according to a majority of people, at least in the USA, a failure) which many entrepreneurs and statesmen are actively seeking to fix via innovation.
Given this article, the discussion cannot avoid politics.
If we're assuming that political discussions might be sensitive and largely depending on your upbringing/local environment etc. etc. this leads to potential conflicts.
Technical (or commercial) posts are usually easier to digest and discuss. Posts like this seem to offer no sane way to handle them, or at least I don't see a way to do that myself.
The alternative is ignoring and being ignorant to nonviolent citizens of a foreign country being killed and burned by military grade technology.
You don't have to actually go into the comments section on these things. But besides technical knowledge what are you going to contribute to the non controversial posts? Yes, lambas are great, and a half dozen posts agreeing on that, after an article about good lambda usage?
I think the issue is that there are two conflicting populations on Hacker News: hackers/geeks/nerds in the traditional sense (who are here to talk about cool technology and such, and because the place is called "Hacker News") and entrepreneurs (who are here to talk about economics and politics and such, and because the place is run by a company that funds entrepreneurs).
Being part of the first group, it's a bit strange to me to see this sort of article on a site that's called "Hacker News", and I agree with the parent commenter that the article feels out-of-place here. Perhaps if it had some nifty technical details on flash bangs and their effects on humans (more concrete references to PTSD diagnoses, descriptions of temperatures attained by flashbangs and the physical effects of those temperatures on humans, even some possible elaboration on potential blindness caused by flashbangs) - in other words, things that hook into scientific basis (which makes nerds squee) rather than emotion/"ethics" (which doesn't make nerds squee) - would improve this.
On the other hand, I realize that my demographic is not the only one worth considering (regardless of whether I want it to be the only one worth considering). It's disappointing that articles with a dearth of technical description seem to be becoming the norm even here, but at the same time I realize that it's not disappointing to all of HN's users, so the best I can do is move on to a hopefully-better article (or stop using the site and find a place that actually lives up to my own expectations of something called "Hacker News").
Take, for example, this article regarding the hypothetical effects of extreme magnetism on humans[0], which was posted on HN yesterday and was well-received, relatively speaking. Unlike this article, it focuses on scientifically-tangible effects, and even revolves around a Futurama reference to boot; in other words, it actually appeals to the hacker/geek/nerd demographic described above. Had this article been written more similarly to this one (though probably without the humor involved, given the more serious tone and subject), it probably wouldn't be subject to derision as being "utterly political", and would instead be more universally appreciated by both demographics of this site (since it appeals to the interests of both those demographics).
The article's perspective may be "consistent with the norms of this website", as you say; my point (and presumably that of the parent commenter) is that it's only consistent with - at best - half of the norms and expectations. It covers an interesting subject (for the entrepreneurs, at least); it just needs to do so with more technical detail.
That all said, us nerds do post plenty of purely-technical articles with seemingly-boring subjects (made exciting by the technicality itself, to us at least), so I suppose it's only fair that a purely-non-technical article slips through every once in awhile.
The sentiment you've expressed here seems common on HackerNews, and I commend you for taking the time to lay it out with such clarity and detail.
I disagree with you in part. I don't think that the two groups you've painted are discrete, much less distinct. Of the descriptions you've given, I fit much more clearly in the former (I spend far more time digging around old Github repos and fantasizing about Arduino projects to try with my soon-to-be-born child).
However, the technical detail of this article is not lost on me. The authors have gone to painstaking lengths to template the picture of a flashbang incident and fill it in with instances (shown in aside#injuries). They have produced an informative graphic map showing a specific technical detail of the policy implementation in Little Rock (the exact locations and a demographic element).
The prose itself is replete with other technical details, such as the types of injuries suffered and how they were treated and the specific legislation being considered in light of these events.
These details may not describe anything electronic or even futuristic, but they are technical in the sense that they're measurable and require illumination via intense study in order to understand and present.
Just like an interpreter optimization or a new design pattern, the various calls to action need to be sufficiently compelling as to motivate a critical mass to call for change, and so supporters (and perhaps opponents) have gathered around them.
I'm increasingly convinced that "technical" and "political" are just words that we use to couch "familiar" and "controversial."
I do agree that more technical details of how flashbangs work (especially what, if any, tactical advantages they actually confer and how we know that) are desirable.
Even if this article weren't about flashbangs, whose particulars are examined in the article from a perspective consistent with the norms of this website, the drug war, as a exercise of prohibition policy, is largely on-topic here per se because it represents a pain-point (and according to a majority of people, at least in the USA, a failure) which many entrepreneurs and statesmen are actively seeking to fix via innovation.
This article seems utterly on-topic to me.