WaxedChewbacca

> last 2 years open relationship

I'd like to make a counter suggestion that your relationship ended two years ago, but you have not really ended it nor started a new one. There's a very good reason we have a tradition of choosing exactly one person to grow old with. Are you able to explain it in your own words? If not, I suggest you have an immature understanding of love. Please officially end both the relationship that died and the affair that you're having. Then go ask some old happy people for advice on relationships.

Moving the goalposts. Issue under discussion is "side effect risk for men under 40 is non trivial".

I think it's easy to see that psychedelics, while valuable, aren't exactly a direct key to world peace. Why? Because we won't have peace in the world until we have peace in people. And psychedelics, whatever they do, and I think they do something very useful, do not make people peaceful. Even if a person has many psychedelic experiences over a long period of time, they will most likely still be afflicted to some degree by greed, envy, anger, resentment, fear, etc.

When we say we want peace in the world, we really mean we want peace in the human world. And the human world is made of humans. But each person wants peace to be achieved by all other humans making themselves peaceful -- very few people have any practice to make themselves more peaceful.

If you want to make yourself more peaceful, this is the way I recommend: https://library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/the...

Let's be perfectly clear. This is incitement to persecute innocent people for the actions of their government, which we are being heavily propagandized into believing are unjustified.

But let's set aside for the moment whether the actions of Russia's government are justified, because that makes this a lot simpler. Let's just focus on the persecution of innocent people. You say that ordinary Russians aren't actually innocent because they just should have done something about the invasion? OK. Then kick Americans off of GitHub, too, for the invasion of Iraq. (I'm American, not that it matters.)

You want to hold people to a certain standard? Standards are endlessly debatable, and maybe I don't actually have any strong opinion about them. But at least be consistent. Hold all people to the same standard.

Speaking of getting views whether true or not, here's the Guardian getting money for spreading misinformation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/ukraine-soldie...

They go on to say "The truth, they say, is the first casualty of war," and to ask for money, in that very article. No matter how many times this happens, the Guardian will never get blacklisted on HN as a purveyor of fake news.

> those sanctions ARE helping to put an end to this madness

It's this part that seems not very well supported. From what I can tell, Russia thought about the probable sanctions quite a lot before starting this course of action, so it's not clear to me that sanctions are going to have much effect. Even if sanctions generally were accomplishing something, it's not clear to me that these particular sanctions are doing anything useful.

It kind of seems like more Great Reset stuff, i.e., claim that something useful is being done while being incredibly disruptive in ways that destroy small businesses.

I think you have a good notion about not buying Chinese stuff, but that reason doesn't make much sense to me. I've heard people say that the US might have caused the deaths of half a million children in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion; do you buy anything from the US?

> consumer engagement skyrockets the closer you get to violating community standards

"Violation of community standards" often simply consists of having signal, i.e. talking plainly about objectively existent measurable artifacts. That's what Rogan tends to do, so he is providing signal, which his audience is hungry for, because they're sick of the noise endlessly blasted out by the mainstream. "Community standards" being "violated" doesn't necessarily mean anything bad happened. If something bad actually happened, be specific about what it is. If you can't be specific, _what exactly is your real issue_?

I don't think there's much sense in hating it. It has a real and interesting meaning, but it's just rare to hear anyone provide it.

The problem is that understanding it rests on something most people have never even heard of, much less looked into themselves: that experience does not actually work how they think it does. Experience seems panoramic, i.e. continuously seeing, continuously hearing, etc. But that's not the way it actually is. Experience actually consists of a very rapid series of micro-messages from the sense bases, and those are stitched together by the mind to provide the illusion of panoramic awareness.

Once that's understood, you can give the real definition of mindfulness: remembering to know what kind of message the mind is currently knowing. This will be like watching attention flicker between knowing information about touching, seeing, hearing, etc. A person is being mindful when they're watching how mind's attention is moving.

I second Fastmail. They're simply great.

> Your account, if I'm not mistaken, is very much in the latter category.

You should be glad that someone cares enough to keep trying to administer medicine. The people who just went away when you made it clear that you were going to persistently treat them unfairly, they just consider you and other users unredeemable, lost, that trying to help you wasn't worth their time. It wouldn't be a good thing for you to actually win against the "serial trolls". Unenviable position, yours.

Are you being a weasel about the word "ban"? Do you place users in a special status where their comments are hidden by default and they are subject to strict rate limits based on things they say? Yes, of course. And I can't link people to examples, because HN hides the comments in question from everyone but me. You know that.

Sorry, but it just doesn't match my experience. I'm male, and got very strong at computers and programming through obsessive self-study. I have two male friends who did the same thing. I know of hundreds of male hackers who did the same thing; I talked with them on countless occasions throughout the 90s and 2000s. I've never even heard of a woman who did anything like that.

Why are they all male? I don't know, but it's not some societal pressure thing, because the vast majority of the work done to become really strong is done alone, during one's own private time.

If you want to try to contradict me on this, please be prepared to explain how societal pressure/approval/disapproval/support/whatever can apply when we are talking about self-study essentially done in secret. To put it another way, please try to explain to me how societal pressure could prevent you from becoming an expert at, say, math in your free time if you were obsessed with it.

It's biological. And if you step back and think about it for a moment, why in the world wouldn't it be? The left just seems to have some bizarre need for different things to be exactly equal when they have no reason to be.

Sure, I appreciate your view on that. My problem with the current situation is that bricks are being thrown at my head every day on HN, but it's not considered idealogical battling when it's my opponents pulling the trigger. It only becomes idealogical battling when I start chucking bricks back.

If COVID isn't the primary topic here, then let's auto-flag all the propaganda about it coming from the likes of the NYT and Washington Post. If talking about that stuff is allowed, then... let me talk about it. I didn't want to talk about it -- users did, until I started explaining views they found jarring, at which point they flagged me into the dungeon (or whatever, I don't know exactly how it works, not that it matters).

You see what's happening. You see how this actually works. They talk about it, I respond, HN puts me in the dungeon while maintaining a facade that HN is some kind of ultra curiosity zone. Such BS.

> If you want to be not rate limited, you'll have to contact HN. They will fix it for you, but not if you continue past behavior.

Oh, I've talked with dang a few times. Are you actually able to point to any bad behavior of mine? As far as I can tell, I've been put in the doghouse for having wrong opinions. At the very same time, HN tries to maintain the mythology that it was necessary to suppress me because of my lack of curiosity, when in fact I seem to be suppressed due to the typical HN user's lack of curiosity. Isn't the practice of suppressing people for having wrong opinions exactly what we need to be talking about?

> show some proof that it's not the users flagging or down voting

Not possible to do using any normal means, of course. So, not a very useful hoop to ask somebody to jump through.

But I can testify that although I've never been abusive, I seem to be in an indefinite extreme rate-limiting and shadowban status. I'd link to my innocuous posts for proof, but... they are hidden from you by the shadowbanning system. ...And I'd like to respond to you right now, but I'm being rate-limited.

Is this your daily experience with HN, having your posts hidden from others and having to try to post your comments ten times over a period of several hours? If not, I suggest you are not fully aware of the level of suppression on HN.

The real problems aren't in tech. The real problems are in people, and they're not easy to fix. But they're even harder to fix given that very few people are interested in the kinds of actions that might help. Like cancer patients who might be cured except that they don't believe in medicine, and aren't willing to take it anyway.

Well, another hypothesis is that he's old enough to remember when flying on an airplane resembled a service where the company was trying to ensure that the customer was pleased about it. Like they still do on many non-US airlines.

I don't think people understand the trades they're making. They see that one offering seems to do approximately the same stuff as another one, but it only costs half as much, and don't understand that the cheaper offering is one one millionth as fixable as the more expensive one. By the time it fails, they forgot the circumstances under which they bought it, so they may never connect cause and effect.

Being young is all about lack of perspective, lack of experience about how things can go wrong. I was able to do all kinds of things long before I was able to make good decisions about what I actually should do.

Ivermectin is also apparently a potent protease inhibitor. Inhibition of protease sabotages viral replication. Does that change the picture for you?

To test, just take the wording you're thinking about using, and substitute in "white male" or whatever, as needed. For example, "only white males need apply." Or if your statement is negative, try something like "no Jews, please." See how it sounds.

> But Hangul is great, I wish Thailand would adopt it.

What a weird wish. Does Hangul even have ways to write the in-between consonants in Thai like dt or bp? Does Hangul even have the Thai vowel sound ื (which certainly has no unambiguous way to be written in English)? And then what about tones? Tones in Thai are not written explicitly, but computed based on a number of factors including character classes, length of vowel sound (does Hangul have a way to indicate short or long vowels?), end-of-syllable sound, and tone mark. If you wrote Thai in Hangul, how would you pay homage to loan words from Pali/Sanskrit? Again, just... what a weird wish!

It doesn't matter. It's the same question as whether abolishing due process or the jury system or making encryption illegal would reduce crime. We don't mandate medical procedures because it violates bodily autonomy. Heard of the Nuremberg Code? We don't simply look at effects to decide what to do; there are also important principles at stake.

Articles like these tend to flagged, I think, because HN's progressives realize that they are an opportunity to be humble and honest and say "we had good intentions, but something is going terribly wrong" -- and they know they're not willing or able to do that. Allowing the article to stay and be discussed would let that truth shine, so it has to be squashed. Let's see if the pattern holds in this instance.

I wouldn't assume that it did. I would focus on its remaining extreme plasticity. It seems likely that you could do an enormous amount of self-cultivation via practices like meditation.

In my experience, cold is the absolute worst and last resort. It's almost always better to get in via someone who knows you, because, for example, if a coder at the company everyone regards as highly competent advocates for you and says you're also highly competent, that instantly cuts through tons of nonsense.

I would only do cold after I had asked each and every former colleague or anyone who even knows me, if they could help me get a foot in the door.

It happens the same way over and over. Some site will offer discoverability, so writers flock to it, and then the site gradually becomes terrible.

The answer is to own your own stuff. Your own domain, your own blog software, etc. Just develop that. Otherwise you're putting effort into something that isn't you, that's inevitably going to go bad.

I don't see it as an exception. Are you pronouncing it as "earl"? I pronounce it as U R L. "a you are ell".