carbadtraingood

First side (actually): "The term 'biological female' reflects a high school level understanding of DNA and genetics. Unfortunately, real genetics is much more complex, and many women who were born and lived their entire lives as women would be flagged by systems to detect so called 'biological women'. Your use of the term is ill defined and unscientific, and any attempt to enforce it is going to hurt both trans and cis women."

> attempting to be neutral is the same as joining the Philistines.

This is a super common attitude across all areas of politics, that somehow being neutral is admirable or positive. That it implies an absence of partisanism, and is therefore preferable.

That's fine when you are talking about, say, which coffee chain you like. But in today's politics, the issues being discussed are fundamental human rights for various groups. Being neutral when there is a massive power disparity empowers those who hold the majority.

HN was never anything different than Reddit. The illusion that it is comes from people leaving Reddit looking for another online community that lines up with their interests, landing here, and saying, "ah, this place is my refuge from Reddit."

But fundamentally the established community is just as online, just as self protective, just as memey as any subreddit on a specialized topic.

One side: "We should acknowledge trans people and let them live their lives"

Other side: "We should arrest or do violence to trans people, because they are abominations, groomers, and freaks"

You: "You both make good points, who could say? The right answer is probably between 'persecute' and 'not persecute'. I am enlightened."

HN has always been a libertarian hell site with pockets of interesting people. The comments section has always had bad takes and good takes, it's always had jokes and memes.

It hasn't really changed over the past 5 years much, in my experience.

Edit: Hell site is a term of endearment. This place is the orange hell site, Twitter is the blue hell site.

He's responsible for a gross oversight in safety that led to an injured child. There were obvious and simple safety precautions that were missed.

This wasn't just, "whoops", this was fairly gross negligence.

Oh, that settles it. Robot cannot do things that are outside of the rules of chess.

Kid should have known better than to open with the classic, "break my finger" opening from the regulation standard rules.

Industrial robotics are incredibly dangerous. They operate without concern for anything in their path. Robotic arms like this can be lethal, and the idea that the robot wouldn't ever do anything unusual is, quite frankly, laughable naive.

Yes, I'm going to make the outrageous claim here: children should not be expected to work next to industrial machinery with inadequate safeguards.

I know this is controversial to some, such as userbinator, who believe that industrial robotics without safeguards are just fine to mix with children.

I disagree, if they are running the event, they are responsible for ensuring the safety of participants. You go skydiving and the chute fails in a totally predictable way, the company who takes you up shouldn't just shrug and say, "well, we aren't responsible for the chute, that was provided by another company"

Is it? Is the culture of Paris fairly homogenous? New York? London? Berlin?

I would imagine the place has some shared cultural understandings, generally, but that a big city is going to be much more heterogenous. But maybe I'm thinking too micro scale.

Dude, children get antsy sometimes. They literally have different brain development than adults do. They do not have the same controls and inhibitions.

Children are literally wired for physical experimentation and echopraxia.

Kids also want to be seen as helping. If this robot put a piece down poorly, the kid might be trying to straighten up after it.

All of which are eminently reasonable for a kid who has no concept of operating around dangerous machinery.

To be clear, any answer short of, "this was a failure on our part to protect the children who attended, and as the leader of the organization, responsibility falls on me. We will make this right for the family and I will tender my resignation" is not adequate.

Because the thesis is that automoderation is a problem. The entire point of the article is using Twitter as an example of a problem, not the root problem itself.

Good.

The answer from the federation is unconscionable. They blamed the boy and then said they could not be held responsible. Fuck off, a kid made a reasonable kid movement. If the robot wasn't ready to be around children, it shouldn't have been deployed around children. And there should have been a big red button that immediately everything, within reach of every player.

Is it? Are you planning on running your own Daily Stormer or 8chan?

It's not a slippery slope, it's not harder to run your own website. Don't extrapolate from a few extremist cases.

What? Even with the best moderation, humans will periodically brigade a site with awful content because they think it's funny to do so.

The article isn't about being banned on Twitter. It's about automated moderation (a side effect of which is, yes, a Twitter ban.)

Thailand has laws about how one can talk about the king, right? Maybe there's no safe harbor provisions for websites, and a site this size is too small to fight, but big enough to attract attention?

Ok, so you are saying current and increasing beef consumption rates are fine?

I'm saying we should price the externalities into the cost of beef. What other solution is there?

No. We were nature, but we're progressing faster than natural processes can adapt.

What? I'm not sure what you are saying... We don't need to eat beef, both here and in Brazil. We choose to, in both places. We, locally, need to regulate harder and push harder globally to protect things.

"Need". We don't need to do those things. We choose to do those things.

We disagree, fundamentally. Amicably, I'm going to suggest these threads have run their course. Handshake and agree to disagree?

Note I specifically said "at our hands" to suggest exactly this. Nature gonna nature, agreed. What we're doing is different.

The way we treat the destruction of species and habitat at our hands as a necessary side effect of progress is alarming.

Removing a species from the planet is like removing a screw from an airplane in flight - you can probably remove a lot of screws before there's a problem, but you will eventually crash catastrophically if you keep at it.

> No, it isn't.

If you believe the world of today isn't materially different from the 70s, I don't know that we're going to agree on much.

On social issues, you could be arrested for being gay. You could legally be denied housing loans based on your race. It was considered impossible to rape your spouse. I could continue this paragraph, but the point is we're fundamentally different with our understanding of humanity on a social level.

On a technological level, what we have today is unthinkable to someone in the seventies. The internet, cell phones, personal computers, autonomous vehicles and drones, machine learning, predictive policing... All these things have major impacts on our way of life.

The world has changed too. Militarily, economically, socially, religiously, politically, etc.

1992 amendment was proposed in the 1700s, you have to go back more than 50 years to get to the next amendment.

> Do you have some list of developed nations rate of constitution updates?

Yes. https://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/chronology/#

The amendment that was ratified in 1992 was proposed in the 1700s.

The amendment prior to that was from 1971, over fifty years ago. We're rapidly approaching the point where we can say the constitution hasn't been updated with new ideas in generations.

The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. We used to update it every decade (at least). Something has changed, culturally, that makes it harder to change.

Most modern, developed nations regularly update their constitutions. The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.