nothrabannosir

Or it could just end with mutual total nuclear annihilation of course.

Edit: now if they were to attack the eu over a decades long interference campaign with its member state democracies, funding anti eu parties, stoking separatist sentiments, and covertly subverting the fundamental pillars of its liberal democracies, on the other hand…

> I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.

- Paul Graham, 2008

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

Individual blame and responsibility has become inexorably linked with the anti climate change movement unfortunately. It is a Trojan horse for those willing to derail the movement. But if you stay on message, and lead with “no individual action, only collective action”, any counter of “but You!” only serves to reinforce the message: “Yes, Me, because Us or Nobody.”

I agree with your overall point but the messaging is so crucial that even “people downvoted this because individual action, but…” no—no but: that’s the whole point. No but, no individual action. Moloch has nothing to do with an advocate or lack thereof. We need to stay really clearly on message: collective action solves a tragedy of the commons. The end.

Moloch becomes relevant when we fail to take collective action. At that point: yes, shame. On Us.

Maybe this is nitpicking but just to satisfy my own record more than anything: that would be individual action and I agree Al gore shouldn’t be telling anyone to fly less.

> Why is a rich guy who can eat the cost of a carbon tax telling me my plane tickets will cost more?

Carbon taxes affect big consumers more than small ones, and I would absolutely support eg a Canadian “carbon price” model where the money is doled out to everyone at the end of the year. And if anyone is still worse off, tax oil companies more until poor people are least-bad-off :)

So far I’m on board with both.

A tragedy of the commons can only be resolved through collective action. Carbon tax is the obvious example.

GP technically didn't suggest otherwise, and in fact the same "selfishness" highlighted in that comment also drives people to vote against the sacrifice of collective action, so IMO they're correct. But if you forget about that (implied) step, and instead read "we should all individually just get rid of our ACs and stop flying, to solve climate change" (which GP didn't say), then that would be incorrect.

I’m not sure when we’re started dismissing the elderly’s advice as “just complaining because they’re old” but it seems we’re hell bent on reinventing the wheel of misfortune with every generation.

If old people complain about something, maybe they have a point?

You said "anything", in the context of dictatorship. I only used items in this list which IMO you can reasonably say Putin, an actual dictator, can do. Right now. Except the first one! Because that was a joke, a reference to something he himself said he could do.

If you want to change to "anything which has backroom deal importance, not just bread and games for the masses, but the real things, if you know you know", that's a (slightly) different list.

But, it's also a different comment.

Stand in the middle of fifth Avenue and shoot someone :)

Have political enemies executed

Get his face on Mount Rushmore

Disband congress

Disband the Supreme Court

Keep Jimmy Kimmel off air

Get Jon Stuart to shut up

Get James comey indicted

Get a national holiday named after him

Etc.

Even when we focus on things he tried to do, there is a lot he couldn’t. Let alone when you look at things he didn’t try to do.

“Duh, because there’s an AZ in us-east-1 where you can’t configure EBS volumes for attachment to fargate launch type ECS tasks, of course. Everybody knows that…”

:p

You're welcome to think what you want, but I've had to explain to enough juniors enough times what "open" actually means, so I know what people without any preconceived notions think it means, vs what experts on HN associate with the word after decades in the industry.

People who are new to the profession entirely, think that "open" means "you can look inside." Source: my life, unfortunately.

> ... that you didn't even get right.

FYI: this style of conversation won't get anyone to listen to you. And FWIW I was referencing the quip which I'm sure your familiar with. It was tongue in cheek.

> The reality is that good programmers put a lot of effort into choosing names and generally are better at it than the population at large.

... isn't that a No True Scotsman?

Ironic put down when “open source” consists of two words which have meaning, but somehow doesn’t mean that when combined into one phrase.

Same with free software, in a way.

Programmers really are terrible at naming things.

:)

as far as I understand this entire conversation around ubi, that ideal isn’t the issue. Proponents rather hold that you cannot scale this to a society without the cost exceeding the benefit. The bureaucratic machine to sustain these rules inevitably becomes soulless, expensive, inefficient, and counter productive. Is the argument.

It’s not that we shouldn’t, it’s that, at scale, we can’t. Is the argument :)

I don’t think your statement on morals is necessarily incompatible with the practical considerations offered by others. It’s a different conversation.

I looked online but didn’t find any hard numbers, only vague movements. Scottish independence for example seems to have substantial , if minority , support. If the same cannot be said for Hawaii, then this comment feels… like a cop out.

> There never was a relationship of mutual trust

Technically, you're not disagreeing with GP. :)

Or :( I guess.

They do not, though, give an owl's hoot about yielding to straight traffic when turning. I suspect NY drivers are on a big group chat encouraging each other to cut off cyclists and pedestrians, by turning into their lane whenever they see one, and promptly parking there for an hour.

And there's the "squeeze", and "crowding the box". Almost like no car here is truly allowed to ever really stop so they're always gently rolling, just a little, juuuuust a little, just, maybe, I know it's red but maybe just a lil squeeze into the intersection, maybe, squeeze, ...

I don't know how to explain it but if you've been here you'll recognize it I'm sure.

100% agree with your comment.

The North Star of pr review is zero comment approvals. Comments should not be answered in line, but by pushing updates to the code. The next reader otherwise will have the exact same question and they won’t have the answer there.

The exception being comments which only make sense for the sod itself but not the new state of the code. IME that’s ~10%.

I have bought my tombstone.

I don’t know which of the two happened here, maybe both, but if we’re mentioning one let’s also mention the other.

Edit: just read some tweets and I think I know which one it is XD you were underselling it.

> What, there's an issue because I'm not being underhanded about it like [that] guy?

Wow you’ve put something into words here I never consciously realized is an unwritten rule. Sounds silly but yea you’re 100% right; that seems to be exactly the game we play.

For better or for worse.

Is roulette wealth creation and destruction?