gadf

Thanks for repluing. I'll trie to make sense of what you're saying and maybe reply you loiter. Have good doi :)

So it's bad for the researchers to deliberately deceive the community because a rule says patches must be good faith but it's not bad for the community to be abusive because there's no rule that says it shouldn't?

so the community can be abusive but no one may abuse the community?

If so, I think that sounds like the basis for bullying culture which perhaps unsurprisingly is what is observed.

I think it's naive for them to assume that all submissions are done in good faith, just as it's naive for participants to assume that all interactions will be nice. It's not the community's fault they were deceived nor is it the participants fault they were abused.

My point is there is an equality. That personal responsibility, ethics and integrity should apply to everyone not just to some labeled group.

What it sounds to me like you're saying is, it's the researchers fault that they deceived us and we have a right to be outraged but it's not our fault that we're abusive to participants and they have no right to be surprised at that. Am i hearing you wrong?

my point i think is to draw attention to the apparently unequal application of these principles of ethics responsibility and integrity. Additionally I'm a little worried that your reluctance to compare your different groups is an attempt to conceal, and justify, a continued unequal application of responsibility ethics and integrity.

That sounds pretty harsh towards you and so I doubt that's actually what you're saying because I don't think you're someone who lacks a moral character like that. I think probably you and I are just misunderstanding what each other is saying. Perhaps.

For instance I don't think either of us believe that bad behavior on either side whether the deception of the researchers or the abusiveness of the community is okay.

I suppose what I'm doing is addressing, or trying to, to contrast the reactions of either side to those things and expose what I see as an unfairness or a double standard or an unequal application. hope that helps you understand what I'm saying. Anyway have a good doi

But if I choose to interact with the community, does my choice to present myself, justify any and all abusive actions they may volley at me? Oof coarse not.

The point would ordinarily be a good one, but I think you've misused it.

The Linux kernel community, by your logic, chose to interact with and be open to patches which were not properly vetted.

This framing seems secondary to a seemingly more important point, which is, nobody is fucking perfect.

In LKLM or in UMinn. The light now shines on UMinn, but to me, the feigned horror of LKML at UMinn's transgressions, and the lack of commensurate outrage at the many abusive, toxic and hostile transgressions of the LKML community, presupposes a terrifying "normalization" of abusive behavior within the LKLM community.

By sooch notion, it's safer to interact with the UMinn transgressors, than it is with LKML, who here fail to even once question their own guilt, introspect upon their own created violations of trust and ethics, but heartily condemn the egregious breaches of trust of others.

I'd rather hang with the contrite, or at least hangdog, scallywag, than the quicktongued accusers blind to their own abuses. I'd feel safer there anyhoow.

It's actually a positive. The commoditization and proliferation of content-free and evidence-free complaints against people will lead inexorably to the distrust of all such things, leading to a birth of a future "evidenced-based" moral culture that will wipe the slanderous, coercive and blackmail-esque "fake accusation" intelligence-industrial complex from the face of the earth, break it into ten thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds upon the waste. The trend is already in progress, and much of the blackmail networks are already undone. The pendulum will swing back. We're just in the the lowest, and fastest, point of its arc right now.

Or David Galed-himself to "prove" that the banks hire assassins when someone speaks against them...

Girls will be girls... We don't know if it's a boy or a girl. Haha, well you're certainly passionate about this.

I'm sorry but this is consolations for the losers. This will sound really harsh and I'm not directing it at you (except where I say "you") but at this kind of tall tale I see a lot.

If they (in the above story) were so smart and motivated (towards starting corps and getting rich), why'd they:

Make a family and let that get in the way of that?

Not H1B or student-visa / postgrad it to "high-income countries"?

Not cultivate and create their support network?

Not overcome "crippling" mistake?

And so on? And endless list of weak excuses for why they'll only ever be mediocre, but hey, they're just as smart as Elon Must and Steve Jobs. That idea can buzz off. If they were, they'd be doing like them.

Did Musk and Jobs always "have it easy"? No, they got back up. Take 100 Musk and Jobs clones, I think only 25 will make it to the same approximate place they did. The rest will get done in by random stuff, and scattered across various levels of successful but not super successful. But I think only 1 or 2 will be "failures" or "average people" without any major success.

That's the character of these people. Succeed anywhere. But the "story" about it in the above comment, this story make it like choices don't matter.

A story to excuse "they"s own failure. A smug content, well, "coulda shoulda woulda" while wrongly taking the responsibility away from "they" and the "Musks and Jobses" for what they each got.

Consolation that disempowers. It's bad to do so. To tell people "poor is a state that something else decided for you. You have not much power to escape."

A person I think must have had it so easy to never have to work out how much you can accomplish if you commit and persevere.

This sort of "smug, content, rich country attitude" that people in "high income countries" can afford to take, because everything, even the "poor levels" are so comfortable.

Easy times, so they never have to get pushed to learn to take themselves higher. Symptom of privilege and an easy, unchallenged life to have these armchair opinions that success is meted out by powerful forces outside the ken of individuals and their choices.

If one comes from adversity, one is more likely to learn their own power. But the easy-rich-country folk can choose to give themselves adversity to make up for this. Sad to see delusions like the above story. This delusion is the poverty of privilege, a sickness of the easy-riding armchair theorists content to coast through effortless existence.

Adversity does crush, and does demoralize, but I bet you 10 folk from "low income countries" have twice the mettle, grit and heart that 100 folks from easy-riding "high income countries" with their easy excuses, and zero-cost "regrets" can afford. Give me 10 of the first lot anyday, better than the whining mewling of ne'er-do-wells too lucky to know how impoverished they really are in spirit, and how much they could have accomplished had they wanted it more.

Heavy sigh. All these loser excuses the above "story" describes here pathetic and not the stuff that these "Musks and Jobses" would let get in their way. I think from the way you write about it, you have no idea. I think you, and many others, are blind to the absolute smug arrogance (and waste via consoling thinking) of telling yourself sure that guy could be as good as Musk but he didn't set it up that way, and made all these mistakes he couldn't recover from, is blaming externalities when he had choices. How dare you take that from them. How dare you take that from yourself. What you chose.

Musk's hardships: awful father, abusive father-son relationship, no SA support network, social anxiety, had to leave SA over "crippling mistake"

Jobs hardships: didn't know his real father, never felt belonged to the adoptive family, no support network had to go his own way, had child early and paid for the "crippling mistake" of abandoning that family, no money in 1976

Bezos hardships: didn't know his real father, bullied in high school, had kids early, made plenty of mistakes

Others: Keanu Reeves, Meghan Markle, you think you can take these people and just say, "they had it easy, the cream floats to the top", any woman who's been successful (has to have 10x the grit of men to move through all the shit they get), any person who gets successful (has to have 10x the grit of non-successful people to get there, and stay there).

Again, I'm sorry this is not at you, but this story that poor stops people, is such a broken story.

Wow. Looking to hate on the first thing because they're successful.. confirm your twisted worldview that success is robbery to make your feel better how you haven't made it. Nice try...

Take aspirin daily forever, if your stomach hurts, stop. Start again.

Meta commentary, part 1:

By exposing her soft belly and saying "stab me with your best shot," OP has revealed the soft underbelly darkside of HN. By lowering themself in front of HN, they've made themselves a target for everyone to dump on them. And what do people dump? What is the first thing they offload? The things which by offloading would let them feel best. The first thing people offload on another, is the things which they think are bad, and which they fear they themselves are or have been told they are. By offloading on another, the other becomes that thing more than they, and in their own mind, they no longer are. Serenity unlocked.

So by examining the accusations against the willfully vulnerable OP (who has perhaps inadvertently made themselves a target for others projections) we can understand what HN (or this sample) fears about themselves.

Let's take a look at the stats. The OP's crimes, by the numbers:

- creep: 41 occurrences

- sociopath: 13 occurrences

- NPD/narcissist: 11 occurrences

Seems there are a lot of "afraid-they're"- creeps, sociopaths, and narcissists out there, who have jumped at the chance to dump on another and show their own selves it's not them. But what surprises is that this is probably not the case. Can their really be so many lurking evildoers in a small sample of HNers?

I think it's more likely that these words are bandied around, and the HNers misunderstand their power, and take them to heart.

Meta commentary, part 2:

What if the OP is not wrong, but we are?

What if the industry is wrong? What if it's not that the OP has caused some untimely and gross violation of the moral fabric that binds us, but what if there's some sort of unspoken bias in operation here (aaand...it wouldn't be the first time), that leads people to incorrectly malign and sideline OP?

What if OP is black? Or a trans man? Or what if they have a big scar from a cancer surgery down their face? Or what if they have cerebral palsy? Or are in a wheelchair? Or what if they are "neurodivergent"? In our society of "tolerance and accommodations" is it really up to the OP to adapt themselves, when we persist in proclaiming they are already "disabled" or "marginalized", if that were true, should we not adapt ourselves? What bias lurks in the shadows of Mordor?

What if the OP is a regular person, not perfect, just imperfect, and it is simply this bias against whatever unharkened trait has led to these outcomes? On such limited information we're all ready to hang OP high for their crimes against our delicate and beautiful Technofaith Ethical Superculture Utopia, but no one's questioning the premise? No one's the jury of the 10th man? "I was allowed to," protest the critics. "OP consented." I'm only reminded of Stanford prison experiment. The guards were allowed to be guards, the prisoners consented to being prisoners, and in 10 days it all went to shit. Shame on you, HN, shame on you.

Only a half /S

Conclusion:

But really what we do to this poor, meek, and vulnerable person in this state, is what we do to ourselves, (why would we sling these arrows at them, if we were not knowing they were arrows, and how do we know they were arrows to sling, if we were not making these arrows, and holding them against our own skin, at our own throats, knowing how sharp they are) and the care we show towards this poor soul, is the care we show towards our own soul, and ourselves, isn't it?

What's the the punishment...the accusations of zero compassion levelled without compassion. Paradox blind. Does our industry have a culture of punishment problem? Did all techheads have awful parents and are now socially maladjusted, un self aware, perpetuators of an abusive cycle, even if only at a passive-aggressive and socially "acceptable" way?

So, on balance, it all evens out. Anti China racism, causality delusion to the detriment of the West, all looks to be in order. Carry on

Humans responding to a crisis by blaming each other. Most predictable thing ever. HN commentariat talking with such authority about things which they know nought and can't even see beyond their bias to engage their rational faculty about. Me included

Double most predictable thing ever. Hn is a microcosm.

Each of us all prisoners of our bias pretending we hold the truth of the world in the palms of our hands. a shining pearl of truth is actually a musty bolus we've wrenched up from the bowels of our own experience.

If only we were all a little less sure. A little less strident. But it's not gonna happen. This is who we are. This is where we are. We are the truth!

So let's get back to fighting. It'll be dark soon... Still a lot of fight needs gettin done before the day's out.

Don't let me spoil yer fun, y'all.

I think a man in his position, with the contracts, and connections and companies he has, is probably not allowed to hold certain opinions, such as being publicly bullish on China, in the current "climate". It's kind of sad to see him squeezed like that, but maybe it only looks that way.

Perhaps his libertarianism extends only so far as the deep state can't blackmail him into doing their bidding. Or...maybe all he cares about is power and ambition, and he'll do whatever it takes to climb that ladder, integrity be damned. Which does seem "borderline autistic", perhaps unsurprisingly, because Thiel claims he's "on the spectrum." He's seeming more like a queer (in the old sense) J Edgar Hoover-type figure. I feel sorry for him.

This is a little embarrassing to read the start of this with acute China-hawk Pompeo needling Peter to dunk on China. It's like they've wheeled him out to denounce so he can silence any doubts about his loyalties. I wonder what transgression he made to deserve this performative public renouncement. He sure sings a different tune depending on where he speaks from[0]

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27lgYsiH86c

I'm not sure that's exclusive with what I'm proposing but I definitely think that will happen and is happening even now. I'd be kind of okay with that world where the incentive to cure people is that we can extract more productive work years from them. It's kind of cynical but I think there's a lot of good probably to be had there as well and it's a step perhaps in the right direction anyway. Even if it's not that great on the face of it.

I suppose you're right. But I don't necessarily think that's evidence against what I'm saying in fact I think it speaks to what I'm saying which is that curing is inherently not that profitable so there's an incentive to kind of spring up a variety and a proliferation of industries around that so that now you have you know all sorts of support services for you know remission stage or cured breast cancer survivors. I'm pretty sure that's interacting with the fact that a surgery that completely removes and cures the cancer is probably cheaper than a long-term treatment option.

now I think you're being too naive. In that case they purchase employees corporation with their evil scheme by providing them with the cure of course.

I like that idea that's really good that is a good counter argument thank you.

I'd say pretty clearly if you hold back a cure for breast cancer because you can't get investors to put in 10 billion dollars when you're going to make one billion on it but long-term treatments for breast cancer at various stages they're going to make 100 billion on that 10 billion I'd say pretty clearly the incentives are wrong in that case. Because you're enabling research through investment which judges value purely on a monetary basis but it's ignoring the value of human life. So I'd say pretty clear that it's not just a case of the incentives having a limit, the incentives are wrong in that case.

That's a really good point about lasik. Great example thank you. But at the same time I guess it cuts both ways because lasik exists. but what I'm specially worried about is that cures might be designed to not be perfect so that maybe you need to buy them again in 15 years or something just like a light bulb they can make perfect light bulbs but they design them to be obsolete so they can sell more. Why would not the same economics operate in the pharmaceutical industry I think it's a tragedy that it might when they should stick with their hippocratic principles.

The first points are really good one. But the second point lost me because I think you can see there's actually a lot of value to be tapped in technology say by keeping software kind of shit for a long time. You end up with lots of consultants and like there's a lot of inertia in the yenterprise software industry where there's also a lot of money.

I don't think that's just because of process. I think some of it is there's profit to me made by artificially holding back innovation because then you can stretch it out over the maximum amount of time through which you can extract value from it.

Just like suppressing advanced technologies. in the public example consider like apple they must have super advanced devices that they're working on and we're not going to see them for a while because why would they bring out that generation now when they can still make a good profit from their existing product lines long into the future.

I'm not an economist I kind of wish I was in this debate but I think the point you make is a hard one to refute.

the power of that phrase conspiracy theory is amazing. As soon as I read it I started to doubt my conclusions and I was very open to what you were saying. I think because of its power such a phrase must be regarded with suspicion. I don't think it actually carries any weight in an argument, it's more of a psychological trick... like shaming, like "oh I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist because they are crazy people and if I'm a crazy person then I can't possibly be right so I better agree with what this person accusing me of being crazy is saying otherwise I'll be crazy..." and while I like your points I think the other analysis provided in other comments is also valid.

If you're using that conspiracy theory phrase I think either you're verging a little too much into below the belt territory there or maybe you doubt the point you're making so you are compensating for it with this dirty psychological trick. I'm not saying that's how it is for you that's just how it comes across for me.

Thank you for this analysis I believe it's making my case more clear.

I think bringing healthcare insurance providers into an argument about whether there's a cartel of pharmaceutical companies artificially keeping up prices it's really not a good idea. It's possibly different in Europe but I think if you have any experience of the US system it's clear that there's some form of rorting and artificially inflated prices where the health insurance providers are in cahoots with all the providers and are somehow gouging the prices there. if you pay cash right now maybe cost you 300 if you put in your insurance the same thing maybe cost 3000 and then there's even a second order incentive effect where "health care professionals" want to give you these extra treatments if it's going through insurance.

I agree that's possible, like a form of payments in installments or debt. Which is very common among a portion of the demographic.

It would be good to see some actual economists weigh in on this.

People are saying this film is anti-China propaganda. I'd say it's pro because it shows the hopeless, illogical, ineffective, futility of HK looters and terrorists, and how deluded, manipulated and used they were.

That's what happens under a "Western system" running loose, is one message that HK could be helping to shape. China made 1 law, and order is restored. Yeah, I'd say it's pretty much pro for China, despite the incessant shrill whining of the terrorist wannabes.

This article, and some top comments, are shifting the narrative to how we must not "demonize" China, and must work to deal with lab leaks in future, in effect, presuming the assumption that China is unequivocally to blame, covering it with the mere color of reasonableness and fairness. So with such careful narrative massaging, we get to hold onto our desire to pretend China is 100% to blame, but frame it reasonably.

This sort of bias, or propaganda, or narrative massaging, under the guise of reasonableness, and non-demoization is pernicious.

These sentiments are like, we can frame our China-blaming as reasonable, via pretending the assumption[0], so under the guise of "not demonizing China", "giving credit were due but still holding to account" we can hold onto our excuse to blame China, we can pretend the assumption that China is unequivocally to blame.

Bullshit. Unhelpful, bs. If you want to pretend that you are doing this under the guise of actually discovering the cause, you can to satisfy your own need to pretend that, but it's dishonest, and not actually helpful to discovering the cause.

Blaming the enemy of the day for the pestilence of the season is as old as the hills, and makes boring, and biased, history. And makes you all propagating such cant, useful idiots, manipulated puppets.

Also, how is everyone forgetting the childhood lesson that the one so eager to point the finger of blame is often the one with something to hide, so desperate to deflect suspicion away from themselves?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

No money in that, unfortunately. Or, not enough anyway. This might be a false notion, but I'm scared that the economics simply don't work to "cure" a major disease. It's more profitable financially to provide treatment to sick people.

I hate this...yet am scared it's true.

Another notion I hate and are am afraid is true is that: even if corporations were prepared to cure cancer and take the hit, the state would be terrified of increased longevity, at least I think so.

Retirement age people are to the state, probably, what post-reproductive organisms are to evolution: dead weight that they can't "afford" to care about.

In these areas I think the incentives might be wrong, but we can probably too better somehow. No idea how that can be corrected tho... :'(

  *You have to be careful not to confuse a misuse of an idea for the whole idea itself.

Exactly what I'm saying! You have to be careful to not do that, indeed.

Alot of people seem to confuse them, to the tragedy of both the people believing the misuse is the idea, and to those trying to genuinely use the idea to be heard or to spread good.

  *When life sucks and things go wrong we often look for something to blame on days when we're not at our best.

Exactly. You have to be careful not to blame your stuff on others or things, because that doesn't help you or them. But it's so easy and compelling to do so, which i think in part explains why these notions are so prevalent: they're addictive. Indeed you do really need to be so so careful to not get hooked. It's such an easy trip to fall into.

  *There is this issue where movements to empower and unify have a tendency to shit to blame and divide. 

You have a really concise and clear way of saying these things. I'm so appreciative of that, thanks!