623 karma · joined February 6, 2013
That's hysterical. Hellbanning I'd heard of, but that...that's brilliant.
Thanks very much too for directly addressing that specific bit of my OP :)
"Comment Downvote, Poll Creation, Topbar Colour Choice, ..."
The topic as stated does not ask for the thresholds. I mention in the body "correspondingly definitive "price guide"", but that's a separate afterthought.
Not quite. I'm asking what the privileges/penalties are, which I believe can be listed. An additional second column for the accompanying thresholds, sure, they change so maybe not.
1.) The interview starts 31 seconds into the video, here: http://youtu.be/Ns0IHCj2q-E?t=31s.
2.) It's from over a month ago but I simply cannot find it on here as having been already posted. Hacker News Musk-fatigue or no, that seems so implausible (especially as I think it's rather good), but the basic youtube link didn't return a previous submission so along with a fruitless Google search for "Hacker News Elon Musk Rainn Wilson" that was good enough for me. Of course people are going to comment on this being a month old and I almost even put a "(March 2013)" in the title. (!)
3.) I know many of us are sick of hearing about this damn guy but I found the video very entertaining and well constructed. Good questions, good answers, just the right amount of humour. I was glued and could not stop watching until the end. He came over really well and succeeded in softening my portion of that slightly bitter jealousy that we all pretend we don't have about the chap.
The only reaction I could come up with was a feeling that the guy seemed to be thoughtful, reasonable, and careful with his language - that didn't seem to me like a person who would kill and maim innocents. It removed a layer of I suppose 'profiling' I'd been projecting on the perpetrators and made me feel like I knew less than I had before reading these comments. A kind of: "This is the guy that did that terrible thing? Well I guess I really don't know anything".
"Now, regardless of whether no one in the inner sanctum of dudes-that-Steve-listened-to-at-the-time told him all the things we told our bosses, or who-up-the-chain-of-command was not brave enough to suggest we do something not-Apple-like — this was the system that Steve created. He made himself so fearful and terrible that an entire group of amazing, talented, hard working people, ended up getting screamed at wrongfully. It was his fault that the MobileMe launch went so poorly, not ours."
Even if that's not even remotely true (I wouldn't know), I find it a good lesson that a boss could be so terrifying that no-one wants to be honest with them and this flows down the hierarchy to the point of dysfunction. I've heard of it before, but I like the clarity of explanation this nth time around.
It reminds me of when I was a "Cub", we had a couple of girl members and several female leaders. I didn't think anything of it at the time but I remember one lunch time one of the girl cubs (who went to my school) grabbed me (literally - she was two years older and bigger!) from playing football so I could tell a dinner lady who didn't believe that she was a cub. It was all in good fun but actually before that moment I'd never really got that one was for girls and one was for boys, I just thought you could choose freely. And, well, I suppose you can!
I got as far as pasting the link and FB detecting what it was before I noticed the original title: "In move to pwn boys, Girl Scouts to introduce game developer badge". I didn't even clock that the first time, I just went straight from the IMO perfect title here "Girl Scouts to introduce game developer badge" to the body of the article.
I'm now in limbo before posting the link, having replaced the link title with the one here (I really like how FB lets you do that), and considering my positive comment a bit more carefully. It's a niggle, and I anticipate accusations of "reading too much into it", but that title gets under my skin and I think it's because it's misrepresentative - as though the only reason for doing this is to keep up with the lads and "show them what for!". Rubs me right up the wrong way.
[Edit: reading the other comments in here I almost want to delete this because it's a negative nitpick on the presentation of the article rather than, as others are doing, a right on "whoop whoop" about this very cool news, but I had to get it off my chest.]
I'm a huge fan of Twitch but hadn't come across this guy at all. It irritates me that the original Eurogamer article[1] wrote "As with any Twitch account, Hamilton used the service to earn money via donations" since only about half the channels I watch even have donations set up, and even fewer do the "here's an ad, remember to donate, thanks to these people who donated, etc." spiel. I see donations as a legitimate form of money-making though, and view them as essentially a way for people to say "I like this and want it to keep going". I suppose that may be more appropriately expressed with the (paid) subscription system (which Twitch also offers).
To use the platform for personal charity fundraising where the "charity" money goes directly to the streamer seems like a minefield to me, and something that I would imagine puts Twitch in a complex situation it may rather not be in, versus the simple "pay me if you like my stream" or "donate to this registered charity" model.
And I suppose that's where I am with this case, that I broadly would think the donations were from people who enjoyed the channel and wanted it to keep going - I mean, what, they were only watching and enjoying it because he was in a wheelchair? Without having seen the stream and especially not participated in the chat (which is always a great eye-opener as to the nature of a channel) I just don't know. Either way, I'm interested if it leads to a policy change at Twitch - this one seems a grey area they should want to get out of as quickly a possible.
[1] http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-15-wheelchair-boun... - I submitted this link first but it appeared to be insta-deaded, which I now learn is a sign that Eurogamer could be on the HN banned submissions list (thanks for explaining that, Jacques Mattheij's "Unofficial" HN FAQ!).
The feet on the table did occur to me as one which I could have the wrong way around and while only "slightly wired to predict that feet are smelly or covered in dirt" may be true (seems unintuitive to me though), I think the perceived discrepancy is cultural as much as anything. I've noticed the ickyness of putting feet on tables is almost universally invisible to Americans, while in Japan it would seem completely unacceptable along with a whole host of other related customs, for example, the taking off of shoes and the special slippers to wear when you use the bathroom. Japanese ask me extensively about UK customs regarding shoes and feet, it's evidently considered a hygiene issue, much like their showering before bathing. In the UK the foot thing is probably a bit of both, varying from person to person, family to family. I was brought up such that I wouldn't ever consider putting my feet up on a table, even when completely alone in my own house. Our trains have signs telling you not to rest your feet on seats, I wonder if US trains do. What you say actually now reduces the offense that I would take if an American put their feet up in front of me. I would think "well for them this isn't considered gross, just a sign of relaxation that at worst is dominance behaviour" and I'd attempt to force myself not to be disgusted by it.
The feet on the table one, for example. To what extent is that signaling high-status simply because it's a very rude thing to do? Is it implausible that a study might come out one day arguing that picking one's nose or scratching one's arse in front of someone is high-status body language for the reason that it is disrespectful to the other party therefore must signal a confidence in the asymmetry of power?
I know it's not quite the same, but certainly as a teacher if my students don't sit "properly" on their chairs then I'll make clear that is unacceptable. The older they get, the better they should know, and the harsher I'll be. I've even sent students out of the room for it.
In situations where my higher status isn't assumed, the "calling out", however, does not have to be verbal. This picture in particular http://blog.bufferapp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-... annoys me just to look at it, and reminds me of formal occasions when someone has been sitting like that and I have conspicuously adjusted my own position so I am sitting straight-backed and upright. I can't remember a time when they haven't broken the pose and adjusted their position likewise. Sometimes it might take an uncomfortable moment of silence, but they will break it. Am I adopting higher-status body language than them and they are keeping up? Maybe, but I don't think so - I believe sitting neatly and smartly in response to their pose just makes them (an adult) feel rather silly and they adjust to nullify that feeling. I mean, if you were being interviewed for a job by someone sitting in one of these supposedly "high-status" but actually pretty damn rude positions, you wouldn't think the interview had even begun yet, would you?
Having read other replies in this thread, perhaps I'm wrong, and this means in monkey times (technical term) I'd be the male who beat up the other male for signaling challenging body language - and I doubt I would have lasted long given repeat trials. However, I don't think of it like that. It is simply a matter of respect and etiquette. I'm not the one lying back on my chair or exposing my crotch. "Sit properly!"
My experience of social-norms is informed by growing up in middle class England and spending a long time living in Japan. I accept that in both cultures signaling deep understanding of what is polite is the higher-level currency of status. In other parts of the world, and for lower social strata, I appreciate it can be very different.
Additionally, in the picture I linked, the fact that the first guy is exposing his feet is probably actually more egregious to my sensibilities than his pose. If he were wearing a suit and smart shoes I think I would respect him more and consider the pose acceptable, I suppose in some way "earned". As it stands, there's just something very - and I realise I may be about to lose anyone on my side up to this point - "punchable" about his face...
A final point is that while I find myself in many situations where these displays are considered vulgar, to the point that they counter-signal by betraying a lack of etiquette-knowledge, they do seem to play an important role in the "game" of socialising. I instinctively feel like a "douche" laying my arm across an empty chair next to me or positioning my legs in a way that suggests what is between them is enormous, yet I'll do it anyway when the situation is right and I'll justify it the same way I would "show off" dancing or playing an instrument. But not at work: http://youtu.be/sEtQj9wuqhs?t=42s.
"wooing consumers with short-lived products instead of forcing them (reminds me of STEAM)"
There might be a typo or I might just be not reading it right, but I can't seem to parse this, probably due to confusion about who/what "them" refers to and what action is being "forced". I want to understand it though because the comparison to Steam could be an interesting one! (Assuming that is Valve's Steam - another slight confusion, I'm not used to seeing it written in all caps so perhaps you're referring to something else.)
Exactly in the way you describe. I was indeed using it to support the OP and not myself: "I'm not sure which of us is right, quite possibly the author and not me - LINK".
In all seriousness though, are we sure not one of those other 1,225 billionaires is "pursuing major advances in technology with a childlike wonder about the world’s potential"? When I hear about Elon Musk I tend to draw a different conclusion from the author of this piece: not that he is one of a kind, but that there are many more like him out there. I'm not sure which of us is right, quite possibly the author and not me - sometimes seeing X suggests 'generally ¬X' (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/03/when-seeing-x-suggests...).
One comment I would make on what you have said is that I think Phillips does understand how chip music is made and you have misunderstood when you write "He says all you do is run some existing art through "a little bit of filtering", and like Instagram, there you have it". The phrase "a little bit of filtering" is right at the end of the article and I believe is a reference to what Baio did with the photograph rather than to the process of creating the music.
Vitriolic as it is, I think what Phillips writes in the first two paragraphs - I would draw your attention especially to the use of the word "re-performance" - shows that he does at least understand that chip music isn't simply an existing work put through a filter and is something created more or less from scratch. He just really really hates it, and says so, in a way I find hilarious. However, now having read the piece several times, and recontextualised by your and ANTSANTS comments here, I do think it's a bit undermining to the main point for him to piggyback that rant onto the front-end of the article.
I enjoy a good articulate rant from someone who is making it in good faith, as I believe the author was. That "most of them have the good sense not to say so in public under their true identity" only makes it all the better - the argument is usually of such passion and ferocity that it must be confronted rather than sidestepped. If your reaction is one of anger then perhaps something he said was a little close to true and you're defaulting to an emotional response in defense.
Discussion at the time, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4621731.
The part which has really stayed with me is that he said the only offense for which keelhauling was the automatic punishment was stealing. The reason he told us was that on a ship everyone has to trust each other and theft ruins that system. Stealing a shipmate's property, no matter how small, puts the whole ship in danger.
I often wonder whether it would be a net improvement to extend that severity for theft beyond a boat. Whenever I lock up my bike it bothers me what this simple act is saying about society. I now live in a country where it feels as though theft carries a far greater level of social unacceptability, a far higher level of shame associated with it. I like that. In the UK where I grew up however, sometimes taking things that are not yours is reframed as a kind of opportunistic cunning and craftiness. I hate that.
So I'm curious about:
"Most of the time the people who Anonymous give the stick to deserve it"
Who are you thinking of?
Technical intelligence involves the accurate appraisal and expression of the ability to interact with machines in a way that enhances living.
But is that a helpful definition? Or at least is it a helpful first definition? Could we start with something simpler? Something beginning "Technical Intelligence is", rather than "Technical intelligence involves"?
It doesn't even seem like a helpful definition in the context of the company, which deals with MySQL monitoring and analysis. This talk of Technical intelligence makes the product harder to understand, it's just uncomfortably bolted on ("We're delivering Technical Intelligence for MySQL" - so training then? No, it doesn't seem like it...)
I suppose I would say two things, one serious and one silly:
The serious is that I actually do find it harder and harder "to pick out the worthwhile pieces" in social media. I'm adding more people, they're all posting more, and the feeds are getting messier and messier. I don't think slide evenings started as snoreathons, and there must have been a novelty period before it all got tedious. If there was a turning point then I feel we're not far from the equivalent one with our social media photo-flooding.
The silly is that at the slide evening I would be plied with wine and...well, in those days I suppose Twiglets? Right this second, I would gladly sit through an hour or two of Machu Pichu (OK, let's be realistic: Cornwall) in exchange for a comfortable chair and the quaffing of a few glasses ;)