Hacker News Reader

> The fact that there are only about 30 hackers in NYC says that people don't want to sign up. I am quite sure there are many more than 30 people who saw your post at least once and would be interested.

FYI, I'm a very regular HN user and I missed meet.hn the first time, and only saw it because of this current post. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Definitely some people prefer to stay anonymous, but I personally woud love to meet other HN users in my area. But this needs to either be built into HN somehow, or maybe the monthly reminder thread that some people suggested would be a good idea.

"But I also have strong opinions that other people don't agree with, and may occasionally write those opinions in a not-so-nice way."

Personally I learned to interact with people in a nice way, even though I very much disagree with their strong opinions (if they don't have to shout their opinions every 5 minutes from the rooftops)

I believe HN meetups could work the same? Focus on the curious technical things and not on whether we like Musk or not?

I likely would have a look at the profiles of people who also go there (I just did for my area) - but if it is not a toxic troll, I don't care if there ever was something weird. I certainly have my strong opinions and topics that trigger me as well ..

I disagree

I never use this account on the Who wants to be Hired thread

It doesnt matter that I can be cordial in discussing views, having views at all is counterproductive to being hired

there are real frictions you are dismissive of, other groups like women also feel underrepresented in OPSEC concerns they have while guys in tech have a huge blind spot for why anybody would want to remain unlinked from their profiles

So your intention would be more professional networking? Mine would be more casual. Doing hobby projects together or just enjoy hn discussions offline .. and well, my strong opinions are part of me and don't want to hide them when I am living a private life. (But I also don't need to present them at every opportunity)

I don’t have any intention of using a hn meetup service

Just dropped in to this thread you were having with someone else because there are concerns that had an additional perspective to elaborate on

30 people in NYC signed up while many more were aware? Most use existing public account to crosslink it?

Obvious

> Personally I learned to interact with people in a nice way

Good for you. I think some people can't learn that, at least without some sort of a therapy.

I friend of mine really struggles with filtering what he says to other people. He doesn't want to be like that I think, at least he has regrets of how he's behaved. But it doesn't really improve.

Yeah, therapy might help. I never had a professional therapy, but I did used to have something similar - a strong urge to present my opinions at every opportunity and a strong urge to win every debate. So all in all potentially annoying ...

I’ve had diplomatically phrased and cited comments on HN called an “inherent flamewar” because they go against hivemind consensus — eg, pointing out BLM leaders described themselves as “trained Marxists”.

I think it’s reasonable people don’t want to present the profile on HN as their “first impression”. People have different aspects to themselves in different fora and that’s not only okay, but healthy.

I think what makes something like you describe become inflammatory isn't the surface level fact, after all you're just conveying information, but the underlying message you might have been trying to convey with that information which isn't necessarily as neutral.

If you said something like: "I think it's cool that despite Marxism in America being a niche line of political thought thanks to our history that a movement as large and successful as Black Lives Matter was informed by Marxist thought due to its early leaders. And it seems that time has made Americans more open to Marxist ideas now that it isn't connected to a global conflict."

I don't think that is inflammatory at all and very well meets the bar of intellectual curiosity HN looks for. But if you brought up this fact in the middle of a discussion of the moment then, whether you intended it as one or not, folks will likely read it as a dogwhistle since it became one in counterprotest circles.

So strange this comment got downvoted. It's reasonable and genuine, and doesn't seem to violate the guidelines.

The guy above though definitely hides something.

If you're going to post like this, you should supply links so readers can make up their own minds.

We don't moderate when HN commenters "go against hivemind consensus". We moderate when they break the site guidelines. If you didn't do that, it should be straightforward to link to where the mods got it so wrong.

You do — and you know you do, when the opinion is sufficiently controversial. I understand you present that open-minded veneer, but you happily violate it by calling opinions a flamewar or similar slight, then censoring for ideological non-conformity.

You’re also being insincere by saying “we only do for violating the guidelines!” when “Eschew flamebait” is a guideline — and my accusation is that amounts to you censoring based on your (and the community’s) political biases. You’re dishonestly pretending I’m not discussing the biased way in which you apply that particular guideline — and intentionally ignoring my reference to “flame bait”/“flame war” in doing so.

We’ve had this discussion before and I’m not interested in hunting down comments from over four years ago.

If you say something like, "$fact $slur $ad_hominem $insult" and then you complain about being censored for $fact, you're being dishonest. We can all see the other shit you said. You're not fooling anybody.

Sometimes it doesn’t matter how nice you are, what matters is you’re taking a side in a controversial topic. Approximately half of people will disagree with you, and that matters if you’re not anonymous.

With beeing nice I mean I can listen to a controversial topic and not take side or engage with it at all. Unless I feel like it, because it is the right space and time.

So I can and did enjoy time with people, who would otherwise want to murder me online in a political discussion ... but then in the right mood, it is possible to communicate also with those people about controversial topics without having a fight. In fact, face to face discussions are usually way more calm as it is easier to insult a anonymous stranger than a living being in front of you (but when those escalate, the consequences can be worse of course).

I sympathize. When I created my account in 2008 it was in no way unusual and had basically zero scope for IRL consequences to have a forum account where one said controversial things.

Today my HN account is by all accounts a major liability to making a living. For the most part I stand by what I’ve said as ethically necessary to be said, but it’s hard to effect change from a position of a structurally precarious likelihood. In retrospect, should have used a pseudonym.

Maybe it’s possible to get one’s username changed. That wouldn’t be a total fix, but it would put bounds on scope for IRL trouble.

I have no idea if such requests are honored. Maybe @dang has a policy on it.

They honor special deletion requests if you have reasons, but otherwise if you want to stay anonymous, I find it’s best to just create a new account and start over to prevent being profiled.

You’re sacrificing your privacy for karma points.

You make a good point but I’d put it a little differently in this case.

My HN comment history is effectively a blog in real time that documents 15 years of stages: when the software business was a real meritocracy or at least rapidly becoming one, then the absurd excesses that to my eternal shame I participated in and profited from, then the realizations that are accessible only to an insider near the apex of status and achievement in this cavalcade of nepotism and corruption who grows a conscience.

I’ve known any number of people who started in a similar place to where I ended up, people who at one time wrote popular books about the sleazy corruption, whistleblowers for lack of a better term. But one by one they’ve knuckled under and become part of the PR apparatus for this sticky and tricky and icky thing.

I know of like one hard-core whistleblower on this particular thing who went the distance (two if you count Snowden and bet your butt he was attempting to hold Silicon Valley to account via thoroughly real and eminently responsible disclosure), and Suchit is dead by his own hand at 26.

I wish I had cut my own hands off before building my part of this architecture of despair, which is regrettably a pretty pivotal part.

So even if @dang honored a deletion request, and it’s pretty likely that honoring such is a matter of law not of backroom discretion, is it really more important that I can get work in the Valley than to keep this artifact around? Maybe I wind up wussing out locally to carry the fight globally, but it’s not obvious. The thing about a world where few software companies go public, none do without serious insider connections, and there are like 3-5 possible ultimate acquirers who have no scruples around cartel behavior (as deemed by the United States Justice Department) is that it’s a pretty narrow group of decision makers who decide if any software venture can exist over time. Juicero is in: Moxie Marlinspike watches his back like he’s Jason Bourne or something.

No easy answers here.

physically yes, it can be tested for area based but online and in a time frame so its like a hackathon in time and place but don't have to go meetup and take the strenuous journey of a hackathon