_bxg1

Paywalled. What were the tweets?

One angle to look at this from is that if Slack or GitHub goes down, there's a good chance your competitors are being held up too. It's like an armistice on (your corner of) capitalism. Whereas if it's just your system, you've been put at a slight disadvantage.

Also, unless it's happening every week there's probably an element of, "well it doesn't make me regret the overall choice to use this service, so there's no sense being upset about it".

> this assumes that right-wing ideology is a pathogen that is uniformly harmful to the body politic (which it may not be)

In the context of the discussion I was treating "bad-faith participants" as the pathogen, which I would absolutely say are uniformly harmful to the discourse. Of course subjectively the far right seems to take this approach more often than the far left, but that's not at all clear-cut and isn't the point I'm trying to make here.

Ah that makes sense

But steroids only decrease the inflammation, they don't combat the original problem. If the inflammation is there because of a real pathogen, steroids are dangerous. Antibiotics decrease inflammation by tackling the original problem without a need to also increase inflammation.

(It is at this point I'd like to point out that I don't have a medical background and may be going out of my depth for the sake of analogy :P)

I've used this analogy in my head between bodily inflammation and social unrest for a long time. It's been very useful. And it explains some contradicting viewpoints that different people have on, say, riots.

If social unrest is inflammation then it's easy to see how it's neither good nor bad without context. It incurs a cost, but in many cases that cost is worth the change that it creates. But not always. A fever can help kill an infection, but it can also kill or otherwise damage the host if it goes too far.

> we had a huge ordeal converting our 32-bit space weather model to 64-bit because the change in precision changed our results, so we couldn't publish (in good conscious) without making sure the results weren't within a good margin of error

This is a really interesting dimension to the transition that I've never considered before. An actual change in correctness, not just compatibility. I would have thought for floats it would just add more decimal points

> "Cancel culture" [is an important tool] to defend against these bad faith exploitive uses of public communication

I would say it's more like a social cytokine storm. If distrust in general is an immune-system, we're reaching a point of autoimmune disease.

But I do think deplatforming is an important tool. At the risk of stretching the metaphor, it's more like antibiotics. It reduces inflammation instead of increasing it, and while some non-destructive entities may get caught up in it, they're generally nonessential, it's generally a small portion, and they'll recover.

The key is to decouple your inner self from how you present to the world. Your inner mental model of the world can acknowledge all apparent truths, even if some of them might upset various factions (the legitimacy of which varies; the offensiveness of sensitive topics to particular people is a real thing, but it also sometimes gets invoked inauthentically), without necessarily saying all of them. At the same time, if you're chronically contradicting everyone else you should still see that as a prompt for deeper examination of your beliefs.

It's always been a fantasy that the whole of society could accept all corners of a person's thoughts and feelings, as-is, laid bare. Before the internet, we could pretend the fantasy was true because of our mostly-local social spheres. But now the veil has been removed completely.

This isn't to say you should never vocalize controversial beliefs. But you should pick your battles. Ask yourself whether it really matters to society that X gets discussed - and that it's therefore worth risking offense and/or backlash - or whether you're just being pedantic.

I really liked this quote as a broader description of political correctness:

> Perhaps the solution is to appeal to politeness. If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can't, it's only polite to take them at their word, instead of demanding evidence that's impossible to produce, or simply denying that they hear anything. Imagine how rude that would seem.

Pensions, social security, etc. The point is that the "active economy" will shrink beneath what was expected for those systems to function for the number of elderly they will end up having.

There's a short-term problem of society becoming "top-heavy", where there might not be enough young to pay for the continued care of the old. But in the long run this seems like a win. I wonder what impact it might have on climate projections.

I haven't used Go but I'm curious, how do core data structures like hash maps work without generics? Does everyone just roll their own for their particular use-case?

But that's just it- if you read the article, "all of the marbles" are "not the same color". Oversimplifying things into a broader conclusion is often not an improvement.

I feel so powerless against this terrifying trend. All I can do is try to insulate myself from misinformation and inflammatory content - which is hard enough - but I have close relatives who positively eat it up without even thinking twice about taking a critical eye. I've tried engaging them on it and encouraging healthy skepticism, and it's been entirely fruitless. The average person seems to have zero capacity to reflect on and be aware of their own biases and emotions and how those affect their judgement and are affected by their environment.

I'm just so frustrated and exhausted. It's hard not to lose all hope for humanity in times like these.

As soon as you frame it that way, a certain portion of people stop listening. Even if it's the truth, it can be beneficial to downplay even the obvious conclusions and just stick to the facts.

That isn't what I'm talking about here. It's most obvious on passthrough: there's simply almost no sound being picked up by the ambient mics.

It's a catchy and (now) descriptive way to name a scandal. I agree that you're being a little pedantic.

I've had the same issue. And another, more important one: the noise-cancelling/passthrough features have gradually ceased to work entirely. I replaced one bud when this started happening and was making things asymmetrical (super annoying), then noticed the new one was noise-cancelling more than the "still good" one, indicating that the other one had started degrading too. Eventually both of them stopped working for anything but basic playback.

I've heard theories that the outer mics can get clogged with ear wax over time, and I tried several different strategies for cleaning them. I even bought entirely new rubber caps, just in case that contributed. Nothing I did worked. Eventually I just gave up and bought another pair of the regular AirPods, which had always worked reliably (I gave away my first pair as a gift when I got the Pros).

It's honestly shameful that such an expensive product can be so problematic, but I got weary of being upset about it and just wanted to get on with my life.

Can we replace the editorialized title with the original?

> How Rice Farming Shaped Culture in Southern China

The OP gave a clear example of how awareness of this bias could help real people:

> In a meta analysis of the role of attractiveness in criminal sentencing, it was found that unattractive people received 120–305 percent longer sentences than attractive people.

So coming up with a way to factor physical appearance out of courtroom proceedings could dramatically improve justice system outcomes. There's nothing hand-wavy or insidious here. I really can't figure out where your hangup is, and I think I'm going to stop engaging with this conversation because it feels like a waste of time and energy.

I think "a lot of people" is an over-statement, I don't think an intrinsically broken moral judgement made by a minority of people should be allowed to delegitimize the real issue, and I don't think the OP was talking about anything but the real, legitimate issue.

Privilege is nothing but an acknowledgement that some people have advantages in life that they didn't earn. There is no possible world in which it doesn't exist, and almost by definition its holders can't usually be blamed for holding it. But we can a) take steps as a society to decrease its impact in various ways, and b) see it as a reality-check on social-darwinist or meritocratic thinking.

Something I don't see a lot of people talking about with Tesla is that over the last couple years, the writing has appeared on the wall about internal-combustion. Most developed nations have set a hard end-date for it at this point. That makes an electric car company a really appealing long-term investment.

I didn't take the article as seeking to "de-legitimize them". Having privilege isn't a sin (unless you acquired it through some ill means, but that's not even possible in most cases).

Privilege is nothing more than a social factor to be aware of, both for the haver of privilege whose perspectives might be warped by their experiences, and for the social systems (like the justice system, mentioned in the article) who at least in theory are trying to be objective about things.

Don't take it so personally. Privilege doesn't make you a bad person, and raising awareness of it is a good thing.

But there are lots of superficial traits that people associate with those categories of people, that don't actually serve as a remotely valid indicator. And those kinds of associations, permeated throughout society, serve to make some people's lives worse in a very real way. People on HN often overestimate the rationality of humans, and underestimate the perpetuating effect that stereotypes have.

This came to mind for me too. It's the only example I can think of in popular culture or otherwise where the issue has been tackled so directly.

I had the same experience. We went into great detail on how the events of WWI set the stage for Hitler to take power, etc, but then it was always just "and Japan jumped on board too".

It's eerie reading about a populist/fascist minority gradually radicalizing others under a promise to "return the country to its roots", militant groups inciting chaos to justify martial law, etc. A little bit too familiar.

I support drastic police reform, but anyone who thinks pure anarchy will work clearly doesn't know much history. It's been tried time and again and again. The sad truth is that it always implodes.

It's hard not to think there's also a "we'll take our ball and go home" attitude going on here. People call to reign in the police, so instead of learning to de-escalate the situation they throw their hands up, stop policing an area altogether, and say "see what happens when we don't get to do things our way?"

It's a very efficient mechanism for a handful of very powerful companies to slurp a limitless amount of money up without doing any work. Once a work is created, people will pay for it over and over again forever. And where there's a money-making scheme, there's legislation to back it up.

Nobody's life should be ruined over something as banal as copyright infringement. Nobody. Period. Idealist or not. This should be enshrined in law.