happytoexplain

Good lord, the very topic of the article is how sad it is that people are now pointing to human writing tropes and saying "must be AI", because AI over-uses those tropes. Maybe AI was used, maybe it wasn't. But we could have a modicum of charity.

I can't tell you how many times I've written "it's not X, it's Y", or "it's like X, but Y", or used em dashes over the years before AI. Probably thousands.

I agree it's a shame, but your comparison is confusing. Not wanting your writing to be mistaken for AI is not the same emotion as not wanting your writing to be interpreted as having "mainstream" or "fad" elements. They're completely different motivations.

It makes me a little physically sick that writing, something I love, is now tainted by the constant nagging thought, "could somebody mistake that sentence as AI?"

Critics of this line of worrying tend to fall into the same category of irrationality/bias as the "just be yourself" advice-givers.

I can't tell what you're asking. It sounds like you're asking why they used the word "permeate" in the headline, but you don't explain what the implication is - why are you confused about it? And then you make some kind of joke, I think, about the theoretical use of other, seemingly unrelated words. I don't follow.

This article does a whole lot of "they" and "we" with which I strongly disagree.

This is HN. We are speaking objectively. Poor people are humans who deserve every ounce of respect and humanity as everybody else.

They are also, literally speaking from a logistics point of view, a problem. This is the point of view that smart problem-solvers tend to take, and is the point of view that ultimately benefits everybody the most, in practice, and in the long term. HN tends to attract this type of thinker (which is good).

You are taking a reactive point of view that over-applies hidden meanings to words (which is pretty normal for humans, and not intended as an insult).

Ha, I like that, but to a layman it looks like the author is trying to say "it can't count the R's in strawberry because the letters are overlapping", which is funny.

There are a variety of issues in Europe right now involving foreigners. They are not necessarily related to this one. No need for sarcasm.

Nations demonstrably are suffering, though. You may make arguments about what you think is/isn't part of the core issue (economy, jobs, welfare, cultural displacement, crime, xenophobia, etc), but the result is simply observable in hundreds of millions of voices.

I am not a free market absolutist - I don't think I implied that anywhere.

The parent stated a fact that is relevant in this context, and they did not use it as a shorthand for cruelty. Your reaction is unreasonable, besides breaking HN rules.

That's fine, it's just a semantic argument about how people use the term, which doesn't affect my actual assertion, which is that it's not an unreasonable bar.

How? It seems realistic, not brutal (though reality is a bit brutal).

Edit: Your update seems unrelated. I can't connect it to what the parent said. They said it's hard to accept the poor of other nations when you are busy supporting your own poor, and you responded as if they said we should not support even our own poor, in favor of supporting the wealthy. There's no connection there.

Yes, physically that's a good description of the natural flow of things. No, it makes no sense for successful nations to suffer for the benefit of unsuccessful nations, generally speaking. What they should provide is aid, with varying specifics on what that means (e.g. it could be as simple as favorable trade).

To move everybody into the successful nations, rather than engage in the slow work of making all nations somewhat successful, is cruel and insane.

That's just the word we use for racism when the "other" isn't primarily a single visually distinct race. They're both low-quality words used mostly as insults rather than literally.

I've heard "culturalism". It's devastating that this game even needs to be played. It should go without saying that rejecting foreigners under certain circumstances is not automatically "racism" in the petty sense.

I see roughly the same ratio of agreement and disagreement as usual. And even if it is different, it's probably more due to the specifics of the case, rather than an internet meme. Based on your writing, it sounds more like you have a grudge against Japan, rather than everybody else having some kind of opposite bias.

They are unfortunately the most common example of (subjectively) bad immigration policies seen first-hand among tech folks in the West (I.e. people likely to be on HN). The parent was obviously referring to this fact sarcastically. It's a tech trope.

India, Pakistan, and a few smaller countries.

Technically you're probably right, since most people are not terribly rational. Most people believe their values are the only correct ones, in which case there is exactly one "pragmatic" path.

They don't believe so. Maybe they are wrong! There are pros and cons.

You should explain, rather than being ominous/snarky. This doesn't belong on HN.

What's pragmatic depends on your values.

It's OK if they choose to seek other avenues for dealing with that problem. The easiest solution is often not the best, and sometimes there is no net-positive path forward.

Exactly - they choose not to commit that mistake.

Not the parent, but yes, of course I would. But letting anybody do anything that would benefit them is of course not reasonable.

> They simply want less foreigners

How is that "between the lines"? Yes, that is the goal. If your argument is that it's just because of simple racism or something, then make that argument.

"Quite a bit", yes, I agree with that location for the goalposts.

50th percentile + 30 years subsistence is not "fuck you" money, but regardless, income has multiple effects, not only cultural. They don't want to be financially supporting foreigners, of course.

I think the argument is that the requirements should be stricter than "able to care for themselves".

> Can someone explain why they think this is a detrimental practice for native Japanese?

You're quoting a practice applied to foreigners, but you say "for native Japanese". Maybe there was a typo, or I could be misreading?