mtrower

> Otherwise the documentation for my furnace is... on the furnace.

Sounds too simple, I’m skeptical it could ever work.

> it takes up 64 square feet of yard space!

Not saying what should or shouldn’t be done, but the implication here seems to be that that’s a lot of yard space. Depending on yard size, that could be a crippling amount of space to lose, or just a drop in the bucket.

I don’t know anything about Seattle yards. I’d kind of expect them to be on the small side, but maybe his wasn’t? He obviously had some amount of land, but from his post I really can’t tell how much.

Unfortunately, it’s kind of crazy to use anything better, since — as you pointed out — most people won’t even care.

To be fair, how many of the populace 3000 years ago could make such a thing?

uBlock (at least uBlock Origin) doesn't block banners, at least not by default. Apparently you can adjust your filters to do so, but I didn't even know that was a thing until I looked into it just now.

I don't know about your experience (individual web footprints and all), but the banners I see mostly aren't really asking for permission. They're telling you that they use cookies, that by using their website you consent, and the "accept all" button just notes your consent and makes the banner go away. Not all sites with banners work this way, but it seems quite common to me.

It was definitely full page on desktop for me. Wayyyy way different from your typical cookie banner along the bottom.

It sounds like you're at least privileged in the sense that you have the apparent option. For a lot of people it's a serious deal to pursue alternate employment, especially if the conditions they are seeking to avoid are a common practice in the industry.

Yeah, think about how leverage works, those things really suck to swing around and manipulate if you just bang them out without consideration for balance. Especially the larger ones...

I wouldn't say it's used in passing. I'd say it's the entire point of their comment.

Whether the usage was reasonable I don't feel qualified to comment on.

Not only USENET, but the internet in general. It's where Eternal September comes from (as in, you're describing the pre-cursor). When AOL came along, that September influx never ended...

For better or worse, the net was overrun. Given the size of things back then, it actually seems a decent example of the article topic.

It absolutely doesn't. A friend of mine was a [player authority] (I forget the term) in the early days of Asheron's Call. As I understand it, that's basically what happened to them, and most of them went from passionate volunteers to just throwing in the towel. He's still bent about it if it comes up in conversation for some reason.

> The mainstream platforms that have appeared since only brought politically correct faux civility that hid the aggression behind a system of rules that has only made communication less genuine and more toxic.

This. I'm not exactly making an argument that slurs increase genuineness, but forcefully stripping them away definitely does not decrease toxicity. Nobody is suddenly a nicer person just because they can't call you a ***. They just find another way to be an asshole, and maybe work a little extra-hard while they're at it.

In some ways it seems to make the waters more difficult to navigate. You try to engage with people in earnest and get subtly accused of all sorts of bs. Sometimes it's easier if someone just drops a few choice expletives at you and you both just move on with life.

I'm thinking maybe it depends on goals?

I don't know what your goals are when you start projects; personally, I seldom start projects just for fun. If it's a program, then it's a tool I want to use. If it's project around the house, it's probably a repair or upgrade that has meaningful impact on my life. It's easy to get discouraged on these kinds of projects, but you have to see them through or in some sense you suffer for it.

In the middle ground there are things you kind of started because you wanted to, to see if you could do it, or because you thought it would be cool. Maybe a drawing you you were working on, or a research project (actually, I don't know if this fits or not). In a home wood shop, maybe you're making an new tool because you enjoy owning nicer tools than you can afford or just tools you made yourself. These projects, you don't really have to finish, but you probably don't want a graveyard full of them either. It's a pride thing. I start projects like this myself on occasion; they end up particularly hard to finish because I have too many of the first type.

Then there are people who are just screwing around, doing what's fun in the moment. I basically never do this, but a lot of people do. Those projects are fine as well, but people doing that sort of thing are going to have a very different outlook.

That's absolutely true. Alternate perspective, though --- might it be that "goofing around" was the goal here, and therefore the goal was accomplished?

> Am I not a grown up for making this decision?

No, of course this is not the case. You made a decision based on priorities.

The headline of the article:

> Finish your projects > Don’t let fear, or that last 10%, hold you back.

... and reading the article, it seems targeted at people who want to finish their projects, but are struggling with the reality of actually doing so.

GP seems to be talking about the same sort of thing --- giving up because the going got grindy.

It's of course fine to just screw around in your free time if the goal is to screw around in the first place. It's also fine to realize that some goal (project, etc.) you set no longer aligns with your priorities.

I feel like there are two groups of people here talking about different things but thinking they're the same.

Now that I'm home and had some time to look properly, I guess this[0] is what you mean?

That's.. not very nice =(. I also don't see how it applies here, even if you do assume bad faith --- who exactly am I pestering? I asked you one question, then I've been having a back-and-forth with emodendroket --- a simple one-for-one. I'll also have you note that they chose to engage me. I'm certainly not following people even cross-thread, let alone cross-platform, pestering them until I get a response and demanding they justify their personal preferences.

I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation; it was my belief that intellectual discussion was encouraged here. If you don't want to discuss, don't respond, it's pretty much that simple. I'm not going to chase you down. However, if you are going to engage, I would appreciate if you don't accuse me of trolling on the basis of a disagreement and some weak notion of bad faith.

[0] https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/sealioning/

> Sea lion shit right here man.

Sorry, I don't know what this means.

> We can't stop you from chilling with the nazis if that's what you're gonna be into

Thanks, I'll pass.

> The guy has replied to every single one of my posts after I said I quit going to 4chan because of CP defending 4chan.

Uh. I replied to two posts; everything else has been direct back-and-forth with you. Every one except this one anyway; this one is because you're directly discussing me. I don't know if that's "every single one of your posts" or not, but it certainly sounds less dramatic when you realize that it's.. two.

> after I said I quit going to 4chan defending 4chan

Go back and read a second time. I didn't actually defend 4chan, and I certainly didn't and am not defending csam. I didn't say anything objectionably about you leaving, either; what I did respond to was your assertion that you're familiar with 4chan. All I really said is, hey, sounds like maybe you don't actually hang out there (which is fine!) --- just like GP was saying in the first place. I also tried to point out that the internet at large is basically unmoderated, and 4chan itself exists within that space. You could just as easily make the argument that the internet itself is dangerous and to be avoided.

You don't have to agree with me. You don't have to like me --- even if I wish you wouldn't make snap judgements about me based off of a few terse exchanges. What I would hope for, however, is that you could remain civil, rather than open fire with personal attacks. Especially here on HN.

I'll leave that one up to you; we can discuss further or not, but I'm not going to engage in an open flame war here.

> The sheep are not going to visit in this scenario because a free-for-all is comfortable for the wolves and not for the sheep. I think this is pretty straightforward with a moment of thought.

Yes, of course. It did seem the clear intent behind your words. Arm the sheep and it may be a different matter, no? Or, as you say, the sheep could simply not show up if they don't like their odds. I'm really not making a value judgement on the situation, just saying that everyone is handed equal tools here.

> Here’s another thought: avowed Nazis are not, strictly speaking, stopped from participating in any pseudonymous forum, if they can keep their views on that subject to themselves. Why is this model less “open” or “egalitarian” than one where they’re allowed to barge into conversations and start spewing that stuff?

Well, the easy answer is that it's less open because it is moderated. Perhaps each is open in different, conflicting ways? I'm not really prepared to perform an analysis on the ethics of each, and please don't take my response as necessarily expressing a preference for the former. Insofar as I spend time on any social platform, it is mostly HN, and mostly because I find the conversation here generally more civil than elsewhere. So in practice, I do seem to express a preference for the latter.

I mean yeah, I don’t use Facebook. And the Association Board stood by the decision to discontinue use. The point is about critical mass and whether people will follow you, or whether you’ll just be alone in your shiny new social platform.

I’d you only care about communications with a certain level of critical importance, then phones and email still work fine.

Yes, me again!

> If you're going to say that I've never used the site, I've also established that I have.

So… you’ve no respect for your former self? You see how this works?

Nowhere did I defend cp. Those are your words about me, not my words about anything. And what about my username? Am I supposed to hide behind a throwaway for any sort of contentious take? Does that make me a man somehow?

Good day, sir!

You really think I’m going to link or reference known csam traps here? Or anywhere for that matter?

…and because I didn’t do that, you’re calling me a pedophile? Come on man, let’s reign it in a bit here…

That really isn’t the point, I said it was tame for a reason.

XD yes.

I realize you’re probably trying to disagree with me, but, yes.

> This is the absolutely critical point that people are either too privileged to have ever thought of, or too disingenuous to admit.

...or fundamentally disagree with? Yes, you're describing something real. You're also setting a double standard. Is it possible to understand the premises but come to different conclusions?

> I stopped using 4chan 15 years ago when I realized that a huge portion of the people on there are not merely roleplaying nazis, but honestly hold the views they obscure behind the atmosphere of joking.

How is that not an integral component of equal access?

Everyone has been on slashdot too, right? I mean come on, it's slashdot.

...except realistically, even though I'm in the age and interest group, I've been there like, a single-digit number of times --- which totally qualifies me as an expert on it, right?

I know a good amount of people in their 30s who were perpetually online, from that time onward, and can can think of maybe two who have been to 4chan.

> The last time I went there it was full of CP and I lose all respect for people who use that site no matter how you try to spin it.

It sounds like you don't actually use the site --- just like GP was saying.

I think you sort of do it indirectly. You frame your counter-response in a way that is likely to garner the support and upvotes of the opposing camp (opposing to post you're arguing with). Battle lines having been drawn, the internet goes to war.