pksdjfikkkkdsff

I understand why you are not happy about exchanges like this, but why do you tell that only to me, and not to pvg? Surely insulting other users is against the guidelines? I tend to shoot back in the same tone that I am addressed with.

Calling other people trolls or flamebaiting is insulting.

I didn't consider ti flamebait, I considered it ridiculous. Not just one Twitter comment.

But that would not halting climate change now, but in a few decades when all the current vehicles have been replaced? Also afaik the CO2 difference between electric vehicles and fuel based vehicles is not even that great?

The scary part is that I think many things climate activists propose actually produce a lot more CO2 in the short term. Factories to build those new cars. Building housing to shorten the commutes. Many other things. Wouldn't it be better to use the existing infrastructure for as long as possible, rather than build new things to replace it?

I wonder how much of a proxy for CO2 output the cost of things is, anyway (since oil price affects so many things). If "cleaner" new products cost more, it makes me suspect they actually consume more CO2 in production. Of course you have to factor in CO2 production in use (fossil fuels vs battery powered cars for example). But often the advantage is not so clear cut. If the new things were better, there would be no need for political intervention to make people use them.

Again - I was referring to her tweets, commenting on the real US. Not her fiction.

There were demonstrations inspired by her fiction. In the real world. She commented on those.

Since then she has released a whole book about the US becoming a handmaid's tale world. That book is fiction. Here Twitter comments before that were not. They refer to the real world.

Here in Germany we have an airport that has so far cost 5 Billion to build, and it doesn't even work yet.

So you are saying, for just the cost of 200 of those airports, climate change could be halted?

I find that extremely unlikely. I mean for the price, you could basically only build 200 things that are the size of that airport (granted, you can build them cheaper, but apparently it is not a given that it works out).

I think you need to change far more things than just 200 airports to halt climate change.

New power plants or solar energy thingies or whatever. New cities so that people don't have to commute with energy sucking cars. New cars, so that people don't need to burn fossil fuels for driving (and we are talking millions of cars). New factories, new farming methods, and so on and so on. And not just in one country, but world wide.

What they want is that you need a diversity counselor for every action or endeavor you undertake in daily life. So it is deliberately confusing, to make it impossible to navigate without a gender studies degree.

Again, that is not what I said. I said she endorsed a specific claim about the development in US society, that is absolutely ridiculous. It has nothing to do with Trump or her age.

And what do you mean by "it is not even clear"? That is your criticism, that you flat out don't believe me? Then just say so right away, and don't make up phony reasons to dismiss my tweet.

I don't care enough about you to google for her specific statements, though. If you don't believe me, fine, whatever.

And my comment is "poopy"? I mentioned a specific reason why I don't hold her in high regard anymore. Yeah, she is a woman and she is old, but I am still allowed to not revere her. I know that is hard for liberals to grasp.

That's just gibberish designed to justify theft. A community (like a nation) can also have shared property, and defend it with a border.

Same for property rights. So get rid of property rights? But then that would have to include sexual access to other people, which would also be violence.

Yes I know that, but it confirms that it is now a realistic scenario for her. But as I said, my information was from her comments on "Handmaids Tale" demonstrations she made on Twitter, which she made before publishing the novel.

I forgot I mentioned the age - but still, it is in the opposite sense. It is not part of the reason I "dismiss" her now, I only mentioned it to soften the criticism.

In any case, why shouldn't her actions be relevant? To me, it changed my opinion about her. Why wouldn't it be relevant for others, too?

What about my "dismissal" is generic? I gave a specific reason for my dismissal. "Ok Boomer" or "she is old" would have been generic, but that is not what I wrote. I didn't mention her age at all.

Thank you for taking the time trying to explain!

Obviously, I disagree with many things about the approach HN has taken, but of course it is your site, you can do as you want.

For starters, if you say people can just skip things that don't satisfy their curiosity, I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to political controversies. I can understand if you want to moderate the "root articles" (the once that are listed on the homepage), but why do you care about the comments? If people discuss something, obviously it interests them (strikes their curiosity). What does it matter if they make a 10000 comment thread about it? I think you have some sort of algorithmic counter measures against long threads, which does nothing but enrage (presumably based on some heuristic PG once made, when he felt long comment threads signal flame wars)

Ultimately it seems to me all about the people you attract here to vote on things. I've just tried to read that article about Atwood, and it is entirely too long-winded for me. If HN had been founded by some famous literary professor, you would probably get only submissions like that, and nothing about technology or science. But it was founded by PG and now it is associated with YCombinator, so it draws a different crowd.

Just saying I don't think the "curiosity" rule is really what makes HN, it is the people you manage to attract.

And to that I personally can say, I wouldn't mind some other user ripping into me in comments for some political or other reasons. I do mind HN itself telling me I am not wanted here , which it does in so many ways.

Of course, again, that is your right to do, as it is your site. It just makes me sad (unsurprisingly), having been on HN since the early days. And ultimately it does seem to boil down to political opinions, even if you don't consciously target certain opinions above others, as you claim.

It's not about Trump, it is about claiming the US is close to devolving into the state of handmaid's tale. I don't know how many people here have read it (the book, I mean). I have read it. It is a ridiculous claim.

I learned about it from her Twitter account, not sure if she talked about it elsewhere.

Edit: it is also right on top of the article - "her long-awaited sequel to The Handmaid’s Tale, was released, and she became something else entirely: a worldwide cultural phenomenon. The novel, set in a not-so-distant United States where fundamentalist fascists have gained power and stripped away women’s rights"

(Although I was referring to her comments before the release of the new book, but the new book confirms it).

I honestly don't understand the distinction? The article is legit, because somehow it has authority by being published in a random media outlet? Is that it? Whereas my opinion is "flamebait" because I don't have authority?

Yes, I disagree with her. Not because of her old age, but because she seriously claimed the scenario of Handmaid's Tale was near. There were people demonstrating in Handmaid's Tale costumes, and she was cheering them on.

If anything, THAT is "political flamebait" - claiming we are entering Handmaid's Tale territory. It was and is ridiculous (unless you believe fundamentalist Islam will take over eventually, which for PC reasons I assume we don't), and that is why I don't hold much stock in her writings anymore. Not because of her old age.

And the article is applauding her for "political flamebait", so by extension, it pretty much also is "political flamebait".

That's my opinion anyway. But I'm sure it will be considered "political flamebait" by HN.

Doesn't that apply to the submission about Atwood, though? It seems to me the "political flamebait" rule is applied rather selectively on HN.

I'm still flabbergasted that she and others seriously proclaimed Trump's election would bring about the scenario of the handmaids tale. I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age, but I've lost all interest in her work.

(downvotes incoming in 3...2...1....)

OpenGL seems to have coexisted with DirectX for a while. I don't know enough about OS development to be able to judge if Microsoft prevented OpenGL from achieving the same performance as DirectX.

Given the abysmal security history of Windows, my guess would be that it was possible to get close to the metal as a driver developer, at least in the old days.

Also MS couldn't be expected to take care of an interface that works on iOS and Linux. They are responsible for Windows.

I can't really follow the article. Too much paranoia, or negativity, I guess.

All I care about is having a usable Linux shell and Linux tool on my Windows machine. What else can you expect from Microsoft? Yeah, they are doing it so that people don't switch over to Linux completely. What more can you expect?

Is it even Microsoft's job to establish a standard for 3d Graphics and what not? Or is the ball in the park of graphics card vendors and game developers?

Why do I have Windows on my machine? I don't fully trust Linux to achieve the same level of power management. I can play games. I have a dual graphics card, which would be a hassle to use on Linux.

It would be notebook vendor's job to release Linux notebooks with good power management. Chip vendors to release specs that enable Linux developers to create such drivers. And so on.

Your story seems to indicate that it is not necessarily the school, though.

Does where you worked depend that much on where you went to school, though?

Sorry if I am not convinced. In my country most schools are considered somewhat equal. Maybe in the US it is very different.

Does where you went to school really still matter when you are 30?

I said "if society wants it". At least society has a democratic choice. I grant that it can still amount to exploitation for some people.

Also for society as whole perhaps even an economic argument could be made, like the benefits for society of helping those kids could be higher than the costs. Then in summary nobodies tax money would be misappropriated.

Why should talented kids be forced to sacrifice their progress and happiness to help the poor kids (or rather, for the odd chance it might help some poor kids)? That is tyranny, right there. The government is using their bodies, against their will.

If society wants to help poor kids, it should use tax money to pay for people to help those kids. Forcing other kids to give up their possible achievements is exploitation.

Curiously, he doesn't seem to present any numbers on the outcome for the gifted children. All he says is that it is better for the other children if they learn together with the gifted children.

I think parents of gifted children are first concerned with how well their own children do, not the others.

I question that even "learning together" as in school is the most effective way to learn. Some homeschoolers achieve stellar results (see Polgar sisters), indicating that there may be better ways.

That could also be explained by feminists aiming to list as many female academics as possible, so perhaps they are also likely to list many who are less noteworthy.

It would be surprising if there was really a bias to delete entries about women, as actually Wikipedia is assumed to be under SJW control.

"for minorities, sometimes they (we?) must deal being talked about in nothing but soft articles"

Rather than "deal", they could take it upon themselves to improve those articles. Who should be responsible for doing that? You yourself, upon seeing such a "soft" article, could try to improve it. Or send a shout out to the feminist mathematicians reddit group that undoubtedly exists.

Also, comparing your links, the entry for Geiringer appears to be much longer and more detailed. I can not discern from the Remak article what exactly he worked on, either. It mentions "embeddings" and "CM-fields" - how is that better than "Fourier series" and "plasticity"? Maybe you view those articles in a biased way?

Also, "unicorn law"? What the serious fuck? They now count it as oppression that they get invited to talk about "women in open source"?

That's not the point. The point is that it is a lie to claim she was forgotten because she was a woman.

No I get it, her formula is about ideal shapes (of bridges). It is still misleading. They could have written "who reshaped bridges".

I suppose Grothendieck reshaped Mathematics - he invented a new way of looking at things, that made it possible to prove a host of new things.

In a sense perhaps every mathematical result reshapes mathematics. But they used it here to inflate her importance, to make it seem outrageous that she was supposedly forgotten. As if many Mathematicians are being remembered in general.