JimmieMcnulty

Uh, what? White males have been speaking freely (and continue to do so) for as long as the concept of racial hierarchy has existed.

The American tech industry is run by (straight) white men, we're doing most of the speaking, highly disproportionate to our representation globally (where the impact of our decision are felt).

Well, it may be possible for you to simply not talk about politics, but for folks who have their rights stripped away, their water made undrinkable, their loved ones ripped from them or shunned for simply existing, should they also not talk about that with others?

I doubt most folks who talk about politics really "want" to, as much as they feel a responsibility or need to do so out of compassion or even desperation. Nearly everyone would prefer if we all could just get along, but we don't get along, and pretending we do seems like a great way to just allow the majority to steamroll the minority.

What's funny is that none of the big tech firms would need to change their policies or behaviors, should this actually become the law of the land, as there are currently no policies that prohibit political speech from any of their platforms.

Everything here seems pretty fine (if basic), So often I see engineers screw this up, usually by forgetting a few things:

* They only have some of the information, and don’t account for that fact.

* Their goals aren’t the same as a leader’s goals.

* The leader has ownership of the larger outcome, and may want to make tradeoffs that are suboptimal for an individual person or team, but may ultimately be good for the overall outcome.

* Being technically correct isn’t a “trump” card, it doesn’t mean everything.

If I were a better writer I’d explain this better, but often you can tell who is used to thinking at a high level and who is used to hammering out details, based on these kind of conversations. Either you recognize your visibility and responsibility or you don’t.

(One of) the largest retailers in the world also does this, I believe.

What annoys me is your continued refusal to acknowledge the unfair lack of recourse available for someone who disagrees with a decision you’ve made, and your flippant attitude around making those decisions when it comes to people you don’t seem to respect.

You’re hiding your behavior behind the mob mentality that punishes dissent, claiming that a shallow dismissal response is valid because the HN mob has attacked with downvotes, so violating your own policies is acceptable.

The fact that I was able to find so many examples in just the past week should concern you. It won’t, because it’s clear you don’t “count” those issues as legitimate, but it should and you should.

“I’m interested in what people think I’m doing wrong.” doesn’t mean you’re interested in improving, however. There are easy, concrete steps you could take; simple rewordings, a policy change or two, that would vastly improve how you interact with the “fringe” of HN.

Yes, because you can easily know the owners of every American corporation today.[0] This policy was updated in December of 2021.

But, again, completely irrelevant to the broader topic of conversation, privacy.

[0] https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fact-sheet-benefic...

Contradiction?

The fact that you equate "privacy" with "warrants as a concept" is kind of sad, but I doubt you're capable of learning better, given your pretty terrible attitude thusfar.

> Users here are extremely quick to push back if we do something they find objectionable.

This is simply not true; you act like you're the only person who's been around here for 15 years. There is simply no mechanism to organize any kind of meaningful pushback. Additionally, by virtue of the fact that you already dismiss the people (like me, with your declarative statements about the nature of my comments) who give you this pushback, it's not clear you'd even notice. Just looking at your history I can see a number of folks who fundamentally disagree with how you give feedback, but I guess to you that's not "valid" pushback?

I only feel safe to give you this pushback in the first place because I know your moderation efforts are ineffective to how I prefer to use HN. Otherwise I'd be afraid of getting actioned against, as you aren't a rational actor when it comes to taking actions against users on HN.

Further, you have this habit of making declarative refutory statements such as these without justification or elaboration. That's pretty much the exact definition of "shallow dismissal".

For example, a "serial abuser" might actually just be someone you disagree with who you then take action against as part of that disagreement, but the way you operate is clearly without that possibility in mind.

Edit: What[0] would[1] you[2] call[3] these[4] comments[5], if[6] not[7] pushback[8][9]? Or do these not count because you dislike these users? I'm quite sure, in your mind, you've dismissed these complaints as invalid, and I think that's an error.

Also no, none of these are me. Also also not for nothing but 'tptacek seems to spend an inordinate amount of time defending your work in the form of replies to complaints, and I personally think that's a massive waste of his time, but c'est la vie...

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857054

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32831746

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32801256

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32782368

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32777165

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32777628

[6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32780934

[7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32773572

[8] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32776460

[9] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772466

That's your opinion, and fortunately not one that nearly anyone shares.

You're doing a common Internet Thing by twisting a conversation into the topic you actually want to talk about, even though it's wholly unrelated.

Just because something bad happened to your family doesn't mean the entire planet should adjust fundamental aspects of how humans interact. That's just your trauma speaking, and not a rational thought.

Housing supply is increasing, just not where you feel entitled to live.

Move somewhere else! Tons of houses are constantly being built where I live, in a flyover state. Not everyone gets to live in San Fran or Chicago.

And 7 hours later, ETH is down ~10%.

Nope, not privacy related at all. I should know who I'm doing business with.

I can both believe in the concept of a warrant and wish to hide my identity from people like you.

Because we all agree that warrants do need to exist to catch bad guys...

I refuse to continue a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in the concept of a warrant.

> People are getting prosecuted, criminally, right now.

Name one person who is being prosecuted for obtaining an abortion, and that prosecution is moving forward due to evidence collected from any kind of extrajudicial breach of privacy.

I'm glad you recognize how fundamentally different the world is today than how it was in the 1930s, because not realizing that would probably confuse the hell out of you a lot of the time.

Again, I get that bad things happen, but none of what you've brought up would have been prevented with better privacy in practice. It's well beyond "privacy" to believe that ownership of a corporation should be hidden information, that'd be exceedingly easy to abuse.

I'm sorry those things happened to your family, but they're not relevant to a modern privacy conversation.

So your most recent widespread example is 80+ years ago, and then a very tiny hypothetical set of lawsuits that have not been filed (zero prosecutions are "under way")?

You could try bringing up relevant situations where a breach of privacy was the proximate cause of a systemic negative consequence on a large scale, rather than irrelevant-but-also-terrible things that weren't directly caused by a lack of privacy.

I don't think folks are upset with Andrew because he disobeyed a law, they're upset with him because they believe what he did was morally repugnant.

A guy who cares about evaluating the likelihood and significance of an event taking place.

I'm not value judging this, I'm just trying to determine if it's worth reacting to, and based on the number of folks effected, the severity of the impact, and the frequency, privacy violations seem pretty minor overall as a threat, not worth considering within my personal attack surface.

No you haven’t, not to any meaningful degree.

That’s a silly response, as clothes aren’t worn for “hiding”, but for the negative social consequences of the alternative.

Ignoring the role social taboo plays in that interaction isn’t intellectually honest.

Eh, you may not “know” something like this, but considering it’s never happened in my country in my lifetime at any appreciable scale, it’s probably not very likely, and doesn’t realistically factor into my threat model.

If you want to “worst case” scenario something, that’s your choice, but it’s not very predictive.

An irrelevant claim then, as the comment you originally replied to wasn’t about “feature branches”.

You originally replied talking about how hard branches are to merge, but then revealed you also use branches to develop features, thus revealing a fundamental lack of understanding about how git works.

Isn’t that the problem? You see your own shallow dismissals as tediously neutral, but others as violations of the guidelines.

For example, in this comment here that I’m replying to, you caveat what you say, and yet you don’t caveat any of the comments I’ve cited as ”your opinion”, despite them being the same value judgements of someone else’s writing.

“Please stop <value judgement of comment>.” Is about as textbook of a “shallow dismissal” as one could get.

You don’t apply the same rules to yourself, so there’s zero reason or incentive to follow those rules for the rest of us.

Edit: Hey, within an hour of writing this comment, I'm now slowbanned (a thing you at one point claimed was removed from HN). So I guess you don't like dissent either, dang?

Edit2: Since I can't respond (you muted me), the community doesn't evaluate your activity objectively; you're worshipped, and aren't give feedback that represents a reflection of your actual behavior, so an appeal to the masses here isn't an effective argument. The community may disagree with you, but it's actively detrimental to say so, and will apparently create negative repercussions for the folks who do speak out, creating a "chilling effect", preventing you from getting the "bloodbath" you apparently think would be necessary for you to change your behavior.

Additionally, the fact that you've made it harder for me to interact on HN as a result of this conversation is an indication that everything I'm suggesting here is even more true than I initially thought.

Isn't describing this comment as "fulmination" snarky, which is itself a violation of the guidelines? It's at least a shallow dismissal of their opinion, for sure.

How can you expect people to follow these rules when you yourself don't? Looking at your history, you[0] leave[1] comments[2] like[3] this[4] (shallow dismissals at best, and snark at worse) pretty[5] consistently[6]. What gives?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32808611

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32807734

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32803087

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32799206

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32798437

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32772307

[6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32773948

You're claiming what your team did wasn't "develop features in a branch", when you did precisely that.