phantom_of_cato

That has nothing to do with the ridiculous argument made above.

It is, for the most part. The replication crisis supports that statement. [1] Quite a few results you may have read about in "Thinking: Fast and Slow" probably won't replicate. [2]

There are at least two factors at play: what they are studying is quite complex, and people who tend to study it aren't the smartest. Take two PhD students, one in the psychology department, and one in physics. Make them switch roles. Who do you think is going to be in more trouble? [3]

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[2]: https://replicationindex.com/category/thinking-fast-and-slow...

[3]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

> What is the point of making this comment?

The point is that if we don't resist internet censorship here in the west, for which the pressure is building up, there won't be a free internet Iranians could connect to using a VPN.

We all know that many public libraries carry holocaust denial books, right? It's time to do something about that. /s

The military-industrial complex [1] on full display.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

> As I stared up into the heavens, I had this deeply profound realization that our planet is traveling through space like all the other planets.

I genuinely don't understand what would be sad about that. The possibility of the next generation being able to explore at least one of those planets is very real.

Well, maybe he should have sponsored a loved one (or even just a random person) to go instead. Most people would probably be filled with wonder and joy.

That really sounds like a lie, they are probably just responding to the backslash.

First of all, the entire field of psychiatry is very dubious. It's nothing similar to a mature science. They aren't really doing objective evaluations. For example, very often, if you really want to take a medication, you almost certainly can find someone who'd write you a prescription for it. [1]

Also, why would someone's academic qualifications entitle them to essentially sentence a suicidal person to death?

[1]: e.g "Also, if by some chance a psychiatrist doesn’t give a patient Adderall, that patient practically always goes to another psychiatrist, and that next psychiatrist does." (https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/28/adderall-risks-much-mo...)

Harmful and "false" content shouldn't be censored by tech platforms either. There's no API for truth.

There's some role for courts, through libel/defamation lawsuits. And even then, the general criteria is false factual statements (not merely opinions) causing demonstrable harm _intentionally_.

Will the author be willing to dispose of all the tokens of enslavement in their possession by moving them to my bank account? I will not charge them anything for that.

> Not all ideological disputes are about rational argumentation, many are based in a fundamental misalignment of values.

On one hand, you are acknowledging that some values are not based on rationality, and on the other hand you think they should be imposed upon those who don't share them by censorship?

Out of all the censorship tech companies do, this is probably the least harmful.

But also:

"An expeditionary detachment of US Navy ships led by the universal amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge days ago was in the Baltic Sea

It was 30 km from the site of the alleged sabotage on the Nord Stream-1 gas pipeline and 50 km from the threads of Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline"

(from: https://twitter.com/azmilitary1/status/1574758898086694912)

Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/mZpk5

I would have a lot of sympathy with this if "banned" books meant books "banned" in one's surrounding community. Reading a book "banned" in Texas doesn't take much courage or curiosity if you live in NYC, where its ideas are just the mainstream narrative.

Throwing an ad hominem is not cool.

But that's beside the main point. You guys are essentially the "single point of failure" for half the internet. [1] Being competent and smart doesn't really help too much, as demonstrated by how you guys had to give in to the pressure to censor recently.

[1]: https://easydns.com/blog/2020/07/20/turns-out-half-the-inter...

This is a stupid "hot take", no matter the stature of the person who said it. They may have a point, but they aren't making much of an argument with a single tweet.

nvm

> I am, however, very much not onboard with that journal's political project.

Sure, you don't have to agree with every political belief of someone to enjoy reading what they have written/published. Just as you don't need to agree with (or know about) Tolkien's political leanings. [1]

But, perhaps, the fact that you felt you have to say that says something unflattering about the current social climate.

[1]: He called himself a "reactionary", BTW.(https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/letter-to-christopher-t...)

This is, of course, a joke. But based on the FAQ, the creator seems to really think that we should really hire/select people because of their race, gender, or sexual preferences:

> Seriously. It's not actually that hard to find qualified people who aren't straight, white, men to sit on your panel.

That is, IMO, much worse than the silly "tokenism" they are making fun of.

(Also, the world "qualified" is often used in this context to muddy the water. Usually, you are looking to hire the _most_ qualified person you can, not whatever person who barely meets the minimum qualifications.)

No, it's a finite-state machine. However, it becomes Turing complete if you provide the human with a virtually unlimited supply of pen and paper. Richard Feynman once said about his notebooks that "They aren’t a record of my thinking process. They are my thinking process. I actually did the work on the paper."

This is a good opportunity to reflect on how irrelevant and vacuous is the omnipresent "It's a private company, they can do whatever they want." We also have a right to criticize them for whatever reason.

> he hasn't actually managed to engage with the argument for DEI

Sure, it would have been a better article if they had done that. What are some good books covering that? I haven't really heard much of an argument for it, merely brow-beating and social pressure. Ibram X. Kendi doesn't count, his arguments are ridiculously facile.

> Or... perhaps don't ascribe to malice that which may be adequately explained by incompetence.

Hanlon's razor is a heuristic which doesn't work very well in this case. Clearly, there is a lot of social pressure to at least pretend to care about diversity, so by default you'd expect at least some people to lie about it.

> because HN's community has continually proven incapable of having discussions like this without it turning into a shouting match

Maybe, but that itself (just like downvote brigading) is a technique used to suppress discussion. Become so "outraged" when others simply state their opinion to make normal discussion impossible.

That is an area in which I don't think HN moderation does a good job. They blame people who merely state a controversial opinion for "initiating a flamewar" instead of standing firm against the angry mob and putting emphasis on the importance of keeping a high standard for discussion. Simply being outraged is quite diagonal to curiosity, the core value of HN.

Then read it the way you'd read a blog post by random person posted to HN.

We live in an age in which social trust is declining, so we should probably be skeptical of even the more "reputable" sources.

> Regardless of whether you agree with this person's opinions or not I think it's safe to say Twitter has become an actual cancer on the world.

The problem isn't Twitter, it's the goons. They have quite a bit of influence on major social institutions, and that's not merely because they can tweet.

Without social media, we'd be left with legacy news organizations and their distorted narratives.

The alternative: take the red pill, try to see the world as it really is, and resist the cult of positive thinking. We are all flawed, some of us more than the others. That's a reality we ought to accept, hopefully with stoic grace. Positivism [1] above positivity.

You don't need to be delusional about the present to be hopeful about the future.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism