pickingdinner

I did get to the point where I could tailor a comment for upvotes and guard them from downvotes, at least to some degree... But that's not free speech or free thinking. And all that effort to an audience that is also under the same constraints only makes for a safe but somewhat walking-on-eggshells conversation, at least when it comes to controversial ideas like... space vs tabs and apple vs microsoft. lol

HN is great for what it is. Gathering 2 cents from everyone. I've only had a great time adding my positive 2 cents, and I continue to enjoy learning from everyone else's.

I have had previous accounts. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=unabst

So now my parent comment is +5 and the comment you responded to is 0. Of course, though shall not mention downvotes is one of the cardinal rules of this club, so warranted again I am sure. Guilty as charged.

I appreciate the empathy. If more people would just lay out their counterarguments and objections, that would be discourse. But so long as downvotes are used the way they are, any discomforting or nonconforming facts will continue to simply be downvoted, which is no environment for challenging existing ideas. An environment for whatever these environments are.

And as long as any system relies on dictatorship and censorship, as all of these systems do, there will never be true intellectual discourse.

Yes, there needs to be a way to encourage responsible behavior. But that is not done through censorship. Not even through democracy really... as modern politics shows.

Then what would? Not a topic of discourse here. Sadly.

Downvoted without a counter argument. Which just proves my point. There is nothing more unintellectual than a plain downvote. I even had some guardrails in that comment too. But I am sure the downvote was warranted to the person who did it.

But also upvotes are similar. No one necessarily "likes" the truth. Nothing about correctness really warrants whatever an upvote means to that person. A "correct" vote maybe, but those are unavailable on these platforms. Not designed for intellectual discourse.

Just to be fair, Twitter is worse. How can you have intellectual discourse with character limits and contextless-ness as a feature? You get something, and something valuable to many, surely, but it isn't intellectual discourse.

Youtube comments are another great case study. Reddit also.

These platforms are not designed for intellectual discourse, even when they're advertised to be, and even when they try to be.

You can't just be right. You also need to be careful. Some would say mindful, but that's not it. You need to be careful not to trigger anyone or trip any ideological wires. Not fun and for what, so you don't bother anymore.

And this is not to discredit the moderators or anything else here or on any other moderation dependent platform. Without them the average quality of comments would be worse, but there also is no denying that their primary role is censorship.

Writing is thinking. To differentiate between liberal arts and engineering is complete bogus.

Superficial simplicity here could be thought of as worse outcomes with fewer abstractions. Succeeding at fewer does not guarantee better outcomes.

Which brings us to the main source of disagreement. Define worse.

A confident developer or designer will often sell or even prove their simpler design is better. That's their job. But to be sold or convinced isn't the experience. Using the thing is.

And iOS is all that plus the ambiguity of the existence, location, and look of the button/action itself.

You need to optimize the product for the best scenarios, and guide everyone towards those scenarios.

What happened to OKCupid is typical. Founders envision the best scenarios for their users, and build a business around that product. User satisfaction drives their success.

Corporations aren't really good at that. So they need someone to override mindless acts of profiteering in favor of a better future. Someone with a vision, but also the power to enforce it. But they also have to be right.

Ya, F google. But that's what corporations do. I wouldn't expect otherwise. But that's also why the PR department could get on this and make it right, and profitable (which is always the only motivation).

The Honda "random acts of helpfulness" goes a bit too far to be tasteful to me, because their acts are so random.

But if an individual could use help, and the situation is related to a companies service or product, the business should help, even just for PR, especially if they are selling to consumers, whom are all individuals.

Or maybe those overconfident with negative attitudes resort to intermediate scientific knowledge?

And aren't there humble optimists with intermediate sci knowledge?

Maybe there just aren't enough humble optimists?

> engage in speech against their will

X or musk's will? If X has a "say" on a "speech platform" that's a major power imbalance.

Not that X's speech is this or that, but that it shouldn't exist on it's own. Musk or anyone may speak on behalf of X, but if there is no "on behalf of" there should be no speech there.

Speech as in, to put forth opinion, ideology, values or anything beyond simply being silent and letting everyone else (users, which includes those who may speak on behalf of) speak.

As an aside, anyone know what makes pages like these not wheel-scroll? Page shows 2 scrollbars.

Anyone have a good recipe for proper color coding and autocompletion for mixed language files? js, html, css, php. I love spacemacs but couldn't get it to work right until I bailed for vscode which had everything working out of the box...

Eliminate trust.

The thing must be functional and operational by its own volition. No clouds, no hosts, no servers controlled by 3rd parties that control anything.

You do this by: 1) encryption. Make all data useless. 2) standardization. IoT devices must be compatible with multiple hosts, one being one you can install and run yourself. 3) open source (source available)

Companies can still sell their goods by: 1) offering the "thing" that must be bought. 2) offering the software or point to the software, maybe with added bells and whistles (a source-available extension, audited by FCC plus 2 other parties etc).

Control must be localized. In the app of the user etc. No round trips to any clouds.

You can make clear ice. Has nothing to do with the water, and everything to do with how you freeze the water. Just google "clear ice".

huh?

Ya, there we go. Can people who turned out fine yell a little louder so we can drown the alarmists.

It's tough to argue against better communication and kinder words, but having to care about someone's feelings (ego) when just trying to solve a problem is a problem in itself, and if you're a competent engineer, then it's the much harder problem.

I'd rather work with someone who says, "fuck, why did I do it this way," first. To that I'd say, "it's not the end of the world, let's get on this."

Before even download, can we at least acknowledge that Youtube is the greatest copyright infringement platform on the planet?

Whatever the "excuse" of the uploaders and the host of those uploads (youtube), the sheer number of copyright protected material uploaded in clear sight should be the main concern of any copyright enforcer, not those who download.

Nah, LK99 is still more interesting.

There are always 3 sides. The 2 sides, plus the side making observations about the sides.

Social media / internet environment just makes it so for everything. Over it.

False category. Like saying an apple is a vegetable. Categorically false.

Here, the category of "no one" is incorrect. Correct category may be, as per the comment, "those taking an ideological stance."

> This is not universally accepted,

Try saying that to your boss who does in fact outrank you.

> I'm demonizing you for what you said

Do you make it a habit? You ever consider misinterpretation or do you just blame the other person's wording?

My use of the word is not incorrect, and no I do not mean superior human being. If that is what I meant, I would have put human being after superior.

> I'm not going to try guess your best intention.

You should. Always. Please do.

> language that doesn't make me think

No one's language will make you think anything. Your thoughts are your own. Own them. Think about that. And if you've misidentified an arrogant narcissist or a fascist, that's on you.

> Lots of people. It's awful. Hence the purpose of my response.

Like you? And your purpose is what? To demonize me? Why?

> your "superior" can't necessarily fire you, nor should they be able to any more than you can fire them.

So here what needs repairing. Have you ever worked "under" someone? Or is that "beneath" you? Or is this language damaging?

Yes, they can fire you, and no you can't fire them. Trying to get them fired is not the same, and already you're admitting you can't do it directly. They can do it directly. You get to quit if you don't enjoy the work being served on your plate. That's all it is.

I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intent. You could have guessed that.

However, you are personally offensive, by your own admission. Demonizing people is offensive. And you continue to do so even after I've clarified my point.

I love how only 1 is about design and 2, 3, 4 are all technical.

> Its personality will prompt the appropriate emotional response(s) from our audience

For this to be just a bullet point, you need to understand the personality of fonts, then understand emotional responses of form, then understand audiences.

> Its design fits the intended use

Not so easy when you actually consider what this is asking. The design is what, and it applies to intent how?

The takeaway being, fonts are really really hard. They're not even supposed to stand out (your content is).

I guess I should take personal offense by this?

You and jauntywundrkind are confusing the context of superior. The context is rank and power. As a manager and boss, you are of superior rank and power. The point being, stop dancing around that, especially in fear of comments by those who may take it out of context. So you're demonizing me based on your own context. Which is dark and toxic.

But this is important because it's so often the case. If you could choose the context, you could always see something as dark and toxic, or do the opposite. And if you do see something someway, check the context, and be sure it's considered.

To be professional is to never infer personal superiority. Superior skill, superior rank, superior attire maybe, or superior height even? None of these make anyone personally superior. Even superior character, mood, philosophy, empathy. Surely you can find something inferior if you wanted. But none of this is about the individual being inferior or superior. In fact, even at a personal level, who compares themselves with others in such a way? Who's scared to be compared? And who's after those who compare? Making it about that is the fasted path to dark and toxic.

So please don't.

All that is meant by superior here, is your superior can fire you, and you can't fire them. If this fact is damaging to your world view, I'd say your world view may need repairing.

But with a healthy understanding of the situation, if you wish to get promoted, go for it.

The end.

Yes, superior rank and superior skill are completely separate. There is zero need to confuse the two.

In a meritocracy, you may expect the superior rank to be given to those with superior skill, but the skill isn't what gives them the power once they have the rank, and it's the skill to get the rank that gets the rank, not the skill of your job.

Ya, when the manager is comfortable dictating and the staff is comfortable being dictated (use whatever term you like), you have a far simpler and efficient work environment. If you can relax and just trust your boss, then you can also trust that you have it easier, especially if they're good at their job. They might be having to deal with someone that just treats them like overhead, who was most likely not hired by them.

Good managers are also good with their boss, and likely a big part of how they were promoted to manager in the first place.

You are superior. Dancing around language does not make you less superior.

Just be the boss, be honest, and be kind.

Becoming friends or more than friends is cool, but if the manager can't remain professional, no one can.

If you have a wife and kids a lot becomes easier. You're not single/dating, you're serious about the bread you win, and you don't have any friends or time for them anymore anyway!

There will always be an interface for any tool, mind reading tech or otherwise. And anything that does something against the user's will is a bad tool with a bad interface.

You're not contradicting what you're disagreeing with.

> solely

Not solely.

> "efficiency" in terms of what helps a person to accomplish a task in the best way possible

Correct. THEN optimize the metrics.

I didn't realize there was a myth that some users prefer slower. They don't. If they could be done they'd rather be done. Especially if this involves work. Most users that use software at their job didn't choose that software. The least we can do as engineers is let them go home to their family sooner.