bruthafez

That's fair. Sorry dude ! :)

I'm with u dude, it's extremely odd phrasing to say that the airbnb "LETS" you run the bookstore when the article makes clear that running the bookstore is a requirement of staying at the airbnb. There's no option described that involves NOT running the bookstore so it seems like an extremely poorly phrased title.

He's not the greatest solo climber g, he's the greatest solo climber who doesn't use ropes.

I did not miss the word "solo." Honnold is not the worlds greatest solo climber by a Longshot. He's the greatest "free solo" climber. A ton of solo climbers are way better than him, they just use ropes

The idea that honnold is the world's greatest climber is patently absurd and false, he's just the only dude willing to do the crazy solos without a harness -- aka the world's most risk taking climber. But "greatest climber?" Lol give me a break lolololol

Serial was basically a Black Swan event dude, no one I know listens to narrative audio content when they could watch narrative video content instead.

It's true that listening is easier to do on the move, but people just prefer to listen to music. I've never met anyone who is more into podcasts than music.

TL;DR the market just isn't very big and what market there is has already been captured by podcast services.

You appear not to understand the concept of a safe word.

The entire point of a safe word is that it is SHORT and MEMORABLE, not long and generic. "I quit the experiment" is a highly generic phrase, easily forgotten. Calling that phrase a "safe word" is absolutely absurd.

Also, even if I accepted your argument that "I quit the experiment" Is somehow a "safe word"-- it still wouldn't be technically correct to say, because it's not a word, it's a phrase / sequence of words. Have you ever heard of a "Safe phrase?" Me neither. That's because making a "safe word" a phrase completely defeats the concept of a safe word. It needs to be short enough to be said and understood in as little time as possible. Making a "safe word" a phrase instead of a short and easily-communicable SINGLE WORD is so deceptive and intellectually dishonest that it's clearly a willful and intentional misunderstanding of the safe-word concept. It's trickery, pure and simple.

Good safe word: "Banana."

Bad safe word: "Stop."

Terrible to the point of being unusable safe word: "I quit the experiment."

Zimbardo's lack of addressing this issue in his so-called "rebuttal": pathetic.

For real. This dude could have just said "the lone wolf alpha-male archetype is rooted in truth" and then wrote a listicle supporting his points and he would have gotten his argument across so much better. He formatted it as a long-winded essay for no apparent reason but his choice of format actually inhibits understanding his point, it doesn't enhance its understandability in any way.

Zimbardo has lost all credibility, the fact that this begins with anything but a point-by-point refutation of the Medium article just highlights that fact.

The Medium article was highly illuminating and included so many different sources that Zimbardo's response here just reads as a desperate attempt to regain credibility that's LONG gone.

This reminds me of the recent Johnny Depp Rolling Stone article a truly hilarious amount. Lolol

Realest HN comment of the day. Damore ignored all natural laws (re: conform or get ostracized) to try and make a point about how natural laws will always assert themselves. Ironically he proved his own point that natural laws will always assert themselves by failing to conform and then getting ostracized.

The rest of his argument was pretty incoherent tho.

> siosonel 1 hour ago | parent | on: Harvard discrimination lawsuit: data show penaliza...

"... I bet you cry during political speeches ... half-assed ... can't even believe ... " You make a very unemotional, well reasoned and logical argument, I see. I honestly think if we met in person we could laugh about this

Hahaha I totally agree. Well played my friend. Sorry for trolling ya so hard you just got my goat with the emotional rhetoric lol but I see you were just responding in kind to someone else. Have a good night man. :)

I Dunno dude we were talking about fairness in admissions and now you're talking about the goals of colleges. I agree different colleges have different goals. I'm just saying that taking finances into consideration is so gameable that it shouldn't be a factor in a fair admissions process.

I never said it was impossible to be discriminated against based on race. Obviously it is. And obviously race exists. I was pointing out the absurdity of colleges factoring race into admissions while simultaneously employing professors who claim race doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist then how can you justify factoring it into admissions? You can't -- because it exists.

TLDR I agree w u dude.

EDIT: HN won't let me reply to ur reply so let me say -- no my argument is very coherent. If you want to say that "it's not settled if race exists or not" then I agree. And I agree with your assertion that discrimination based on perceived racial characteristics is also obviously possible. I also never said that ppl who argue that race is only a social construct also are arguing that racism doesn't even exist, I don't even know where you got that from tbqh dude. This comment thread is weird to me because you're disagreeing with a ton of things I didn't even say and that I disagree with as well. I don't know why you're so hell-bent on disagreeing with straw man arguments you project onto me because all your points are solid bro and I agree with them all, except for your nonsensical assertion that I don't agree with u. Uhhh trust me bro, yes I do lmao. :)

What differences?

Just saying that height, facial attractiveness/symmetry, weight etc all could (unquantifiably but obviously) easily outweigh race in terms of societal privilege and it's just absurd to cherry pick the issue of race as the determining factor of privilege rather than something even more basic such as height or facial symmetry.

And that's not even accounting for the fact that (according to many academics at schools that ironically factor race into admission) race doesn't even exist while height and facial symmetry inarguably do exist.

Yes it's better but still so gameable it's essentially unusable. Also if you factor in assets reported to the IRS it would be damn near impossible not to be biased towards kids whose families have more assets and thus higher chances of contributing to your university's endowment via donations.

>Correcting the effects of slavery is much more important because its effects are much more pervasive.

Uh, source?

You're just making an arbitrary value judgement. Who are you to compare the effects of racism-against-blacks against the effects of racism-against-asians? You're making an arbitrary value judgement and then using that value judgement to justify systematic discriminations against Asians.

You're also ignoring the fact that Asians were enslaved too in Japanese internment camps -- and what's more that slavery was more recent than African-American slavery.

Weird to see you throw your own ethnicity under the bus in your haste to agree with the racist value judgements of elite bureaucrats tbh.

>The idea that we can create distinct categories based on skin colour is incredibly misguided.

Yet the "idea" that we can create distinct categories based on geographical heritage is not only not-misguided, it's obvious. You're making a straw man argument because you're the only one isolating skin color alone as the sole determinant in race — albinos exist so obviously you're right. But geographical heritage (ie whether your parents came from Asia or Africa) not only creates distinct categories between people, but it's dishonest to say they don't.

You really telling me that the racial makeup of the NBA has nothing to do with geographical heritage? FOH lmaooo

>There aren't massive systematic factors working to negatively affect specific slices of those population groupings. It's not a good comparison.

Yes there are massive systemic factors working against people disadvantaged in those factors, and yes it is a good comparison. Look up the average height of CEOs sometime and then tell me height discrimination isn't a thing.

Even that would make little sense. Jeff Bezos' income is $0 (or maybe $1, can't remember) — you really think his kids would be disadvantaged tho? That just massively incentivizes financial trickery in order to reduce stated incomes.

For example if I were a parent I would just give all my money to my siblings with the understanding that they provide it to my kids under my management, state my income as $0 or even negative, and watch my kids' college acceptance letters roll in.

It's impossible to use finances as an admissions variable because finances are already so heavily gamed by modern accounting practices.

Meanwhile Harvard keeps being racist AF. Don't they know about Goodwins law!?!? Lol

Real talk. $136,000? That's just "the cost of doing business."

That fine is so small it's almost like, nice to the guy they're fining.