BlackDeath3

No kidding. God damn.

I'll check that out when I can. Thanks!

Thanks for the list. I'll try those out!

They may have understood the reference, and I think that their point stands regardless. It wasn't just a reference, after all.

I'm actually working my way through System Shock 2 for the first time ever. Man, it's dated, but I keep hearing about how great it is, and I'm a big survival-horror fan.

I don't know of any company that encourages the display of passwords around their employees' necks.

>I was fired from MS for posting an image of myself online where my badge was clear enough to copy.

I won't ask you to go into any detail that you don't feel comfortable with, but is there more to this? Special circumstances? The above, out-of-context, sounds very... draconian. I'm really just curious.

That doesn't solve every problem, but it helps.

Is it just me, or is this headline a little confusing?

My first thought as well, but my knowledge of Boston doesn't extend much farther than Good Will Hunting, so...

The reason that theories are not referred to as "guesses" is because there is, in theory (pun intended), an enormous chasm of evidence between a theory, and a guess/hypothesis.

Nothing is known with absolute certainty. What is the point is referring to everything as a "guess" simply because it isn't known for certain? Context is important here.

I tried coming back to you, nearly a day later, and civilly explaining myself and my position, again. Another poster has even explained my position to you (oddly enough, they have no trouble understanding the points I'm making here). Still, you have insisted on misinterpretation of my posts, picking out and making a big deal of small details, and generally being an asshole to me since the very first post you sent me (which pretty much set the tone for our entire conversation).

It's clear that nobody will be persuading anybody here, that we're both right in our own eyes, and this is going nowhere. I'm tired of trying to explain myself to you. I'm tired of you constantly ending your posts with (not so) clever remarks about how I'm a stupid trolling troll. I'm tired of you. You're argumentative for argumentation's sake (which is fine when you can listen to reason) and I'm really, actually, truly done with you now. Bye.

In response to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7241518 (because apparently I'm submitting posts too often):

I've clearly explained above the way that I think the voting system should work, and I'm not even close to the only person who thinks that way (see: Reddiquette). You've crossed the line from argumentative to disingenuous.

I realize that you strongly dislike me, but please don't allow that to cloud your vision when reading my posts.

Exactly what comment are you replying to here?

I was actually tempted to comment about the language selection as well, but this post did mention that it was in the context of web development.

"Should be", not "is". The fact that there are problems with democracy doesn't mean that people shouldn't attempt to improve the system.

"But I just had a quick question! It will only take two seconds of your time!"

To me, the real problem is that a lot of people don't understand that the duration of the interrupting event itself is often the lesser of the distractions. The fifteen minutes I have to spend getting my head back on-track afterward is the real pain-in-the-ass, and what are the chances that those fifteen minutes go uninterrupted?

Interesting article. While the title of this submission hooked me and brought me here, it may need a little reworking as well.

People do tend to think this way, but when applied to the topic that the forum is built around, this line of thinking is probably accurate.

People on HN are probably more tech-savvy than the general population. People on DefensiveCarry are probably more CCW-savvy than the general population. People on /r/Seinfeld probably tend to be some of the show's/comedian's biggest fans.

I understand and agree that the claim that we have more "complex personalities" is a little suspect, but a lot of these sorts of claims probably have something to them.

>What does this even mean? How on earth would this work? He's genuinely upset that voting reflects peoples opinions? I'm shocked that someone could say this and not immediately realize what a dumb thing it is to say. But yeah, this problem in his mind, will be solved by finding a different community, with opinions he likes. See the problem now?

If I think that somebody has said something worth exposure, I upvote it. If not, I downvote it. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not. Does it contribute to the conversation? Is it needlessly inflammatory? These are the sorts of questions I ask and answer when voting.

You can argue that "worth exposure" is subjective, and it is, but I didn't say (or mean) vote objectively. One can try, but mostly I just meant that one should pay more attention to the merit of a post's content, rather than their personal agreement with it.

>Right. And they aren't. So what is the complaint?

You're too focused on the specifics. Shitty comments get upvoted all the time. Thoughtful but unpopular comments get downvoted all the time. Anybody who has been around these sorts of places (HN, Reddit, etc.) for more than an hour has seen it happen.

And by the way, the "cops should die" comment quite literally was the top comment in this thread at one point. Perhaps you weren't here early enough to see it, but I did, and that's what made me say what I said.

I would agree with that. The problem I have is that I fear that hyperbole promotes an attitude that causes people to act as though the extreme exists. I hope you understand my meaning.

Thank you. It's difficult to get your point across when somebody takes your words, twists them, and forces you into a whole separate argument based on those misconstrued words.

But treating all police like scumbags because of one bad encounter isn't rational. It's a response born out of fear, and while fear can be useful it isn't always rational.

>Please help me find that "several"

I'm sorry, I don't think I'll do that. If the consequence is that you completely discount what I'm saying and don't believe me, then that's fine. I don't feel like I should have to point others to relevant comments within the same comment page. I may have time to waste here, but I don't have that much.

I'm not necessarily talking about the current top comment in this particular thread. Christ, man.

Why do so many people attempt a proof-by-example and then act surprised when it fails to convince?

What happens to me after I arrest my coworkers?

>Well, for the most part they're like lawyers: you only need them around for shitty situations, so that's what they're remembered for.

And because of this they get a lot of irrational hate, but it's often still irrational.

>I'm not saying all cops are bad people (though almost all police forces are bad institutions), but why would you just hang out and have a good time with a cop, in his cop role? I'm sure they have friends, but they're not being cops when they're watching the game with their friends.

Is this a question for me, or the general public? If the latter then I'll defer to someone else. If the former, then I'll clarify that I never said that I "hang out" with cops.

>My comment was more about the fact that police don't walk the beat and help old ladies with their groceries anymore. When cops are around, shit's going down. So even if they are doing their job professionally, it isn't a pleasant experience. And if they're doing their job poorly, it's a nightmare.

The cop I had a pleasant experience with was doing his job professionally. You seem to assume that my "pleasant experience with a cop" involved hanging out at a bar together watching the big game, or something like that. I had a pleasant experience with a cop doing his police duties, and it wasn't the first time.

I argue for the existence of good police, therefore I'm a cop and a law student?

Unfortunately for yourself, your off-the-cuff analysis is quite far off the mark. I do appreciate your trying though, as I've never had the pleasure of having somebody so publicly try to profile me. It was fun!

When I say "responding to" I didn't necessarily mean the post directly above me. A minimal amount of effort put into looking at the rest of the comment page would have remedied your apparent confusion.

Please, do stop responding to me. I have enough to fill my time without trying to explain (what I thought was) the obvious to you.

Well, please do try to put it another way, because it sounds to me like you aren't satisfied with the good cops simply because bad cops still exist. I'm not really sure what your point is.

I agree that our current situation is sub-optimal. I don't remember ever arguing otherwise.

Voting should be independent of opinion, should it not? Voting should reflect the merit of a post regardless of its popularity, right? Comments with little more substance than "cops should die" shouldn't be at the top of a comment page, right?

You're 0 for 2 with me so far. Don't join the debate team.

I didn't really expect a good, helpful response. Thank you for the link!