wbronitsky

Please show me the data you have so we can have a shared understanding of the facts. Until then, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

It’s worse than this; employees who helped build the company are systematically shut out of reaping the rewards. Things like 90 day exercise windows, no information on exit timelines, and more dilution like this, pitched as if it was some forgone conclusion will prevent people who should see immense value from this company from seeing anything other than a token sum.

I’m not asserting anything other than that this argument is not based on data.

The data aren’t there, you aren’t an expert, and this argument doesn’t help anyone. That’s the most positive read I can give what I consider to be a reckless take, and this take will be EVERYWHERE in the next few weeks. We need to guard ourselves because this take is deceptive; it lets us feel superior to everyone who is freaking out, which will help individuals calm down at the expense of public health.

This is the terrible take that will be everywhere in the next few weeks; “I think I had it, therefore I am an expert on the spread of this disease”. There is no data or coherent argumentation here. I’m sorry you were sick, but this isn’t an argument based on facts, it’s an anecdote based off of little that might put people in danger.

We need to inoculate ourselves from this argument because we are about to see it everywhere. Confirmation bias par excellence

That’s because you don’t understand what you are talking about. You have waded into a debate where people are informed and you are not, yet when faced with an informed opinion you dismiss it as it doesn’t make sense. This is type of argumentation is a disease, ruining our ability to learn things and expose ourselves to other opinions on HN

My point is that there is no comparison to feeding the hungry, and we have all the proof we need that your and everyone else's private donations are not enough.

So, is there a solution in there that doesn't leverage government, or are we going to continue to complain about the baldly positive sides of government because "government bad, situation too complex"?

I very much agree, we don't have a complex understanding of the issue here, so maybe we should stop attacking it.

Equating banning plastic bags to feeding the hungry probably makes it harder for someone to not see you as an amoral monster.

And if we do believe you are an amoral monster, which I do not, what does that say about what we believe about people worse than you?

If you are near our best, which you probably are, how else can we hope to help people than by leveraging government? It should be quite clear to everyone that personal donations do not even come close to covering need.

With Apple and Google they already have the permission of the tracked. It’s in the terms of service for your phone, or your phone’s OS, or any of the other vectors they control that you carry around with you all the time.

That rational basis you're looking is called morals. We owe things to each other, although you seem inclined to believe otherwise, and are pushing what is obviously a callous and simplistic version of our society.

I will not continue to argue with you though as this argument is not worth considering any longer.

I find it amazing that humans have the capacity to have empathy for one class, people who might die from an illness, yet have zero empathy for another, people who are currently working in a now high-risk job who are demanding fair pay. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

We can all get our information directly from the source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-i...

This reply sounds suspiciously bigoted and was posted incredibly quickly. I do understand dog-whistles.

I need to get out of here before someone accuses me of controlling hollywood. this place went to the rats

Edit: after taking a quick look, it would seem that this user comes to HN to post bigoted arguments with little to no facts, just hate. it seems like HN is totally ok with this user continuing to spread hate.

So we are normalizing rightwing propaganda sites on HN now? Seeing an article from a Ben Shapiro fronted site on the HN front page is frightening. I need a new place to get my information.

This argument is not worth responding to. You are arguing that our economy should be protected before people are protected. It is disgusting, and I'm tired of rehashing the same disgusting crap over and over.

If you really think that the economic effects outweigh the loss of life this virus can and will cause, all I can do is be glad that all you have is your ability to express your opinion, not the ability to do anything about it. Thank god for that.

Finally, and yes I'm quoting myself here "If you do not have another solution that keeps people alive, kindly be quiet; you have nothing important to say."

> Kindly keep the nasty comments about trying to dissuade me from discussing these important topics to yourself.

This is absurd; you're responding to me. And this isn't a discussion, these are opinions, with no facts to back them up. I simply find these opinions disgusting, as they do not prioritize keeping people healthy and alive.

The alternative is a wildly increased death rate, which you cannot reverse. There are so many ways to fix economies, only a few ways to address a pandemic.

If you do not have another solution that keeps people alive, kindly be quiet; you have nothing important to say.

""Shelter in place" laws telling residents to stay in their homes whenever possible are sweeping the country, making it clear that public health concerns—as opposed to worries about staving off economic collapse—have carried the day when it comes to responding to the coronavirus."

This is the first sentence of the article. It then goes on to attack our society for deciding that public health is more important than the economy.

This is straight garbage. The virus will kill, that is reality. We only have a small set of interventions to attack it. The economy can be managed as we see fit. It does not follow the laws of biology or physics.

Posting articles like this is evil and will get people killed.

How do we prove, to everyone on the street for example, that you are immune? This problem is much thornier than you wanting to go outside because you believe you have already had and are now immune to this virus.

This is an article written by a “growth hacker” who knows literally nothing about public health, claiming to explain public health to all of us.

This crap shouldn’t be on HN. This forum has become next to useless, slowly, then all at once in the last few weeks. I would assert that this community could do better, but at this point maybe it can’t.

This is such a weak comment. It introduces no new data or arguments and simply casts emotion about from a biased viewpoint.

Comments like these are cratering any value the HN forums used to have. Please stop for the good of the community.

While the GP might have been off base, there has got to be a better way to phrase this argument. The quality of discussion on HN has exponentially decreased in the past few days. It would be cool if we all started to add to these conversations instead of insult each other.

How bad is it for all these "old people" if they are dead?

It would be really nice to hear compassion instead of worry about money. How about we keep people alive, then deal with the economy? Something tells me the country that can burn $2T in less than a week will be just fine until this passes. Talking about the long term health of the economy in terms that push people out into unsafe situations, when we have a virus that kills people in 3 weeks, borders on evil.

There is one way to solve the virus problem: social isolation. There are infinite ways to solve made up economic problems we foist on ourselves.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here. I'm merely asserting that we should use facts to back up our arguments.

Here we go, actual data about SSRIs vs the placebo effect: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/

It would be super cool if we all took the time to cite data that back up our assertions instead of just insisting that our ideas are correct.

there are still no facts and no sources in your argument. I cannot and will not engage in this sort of meaningless argumentation without data.

Please stop

I think that the argument “it never works like that” should be coupled with at least one data point.

I don’t think it’s helpful to dismiss other commenters based upon simply your opinion, and not a set of facts we can all inspect together.

> Parasite gives one the same degree of insight about Korean culture as Raising Arizona does about American culture.

http://sensesofcinema.com/2017/cteq/raising-arizona/ and https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/30... discuss this well. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/studamerhumor.3.1.0001?... looks to be interesting, but is paywalled. Either way, Raising Arizona seems to me to be some great cultural commentary.

> A thread about the subtleties of Korean culture revealed in Gangham Style? Read a book.

That too sounds like an interesting idea: https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Reflections-Gangnam-Style...

Making something illegal does not stop people for continuing to perpetuate that something. We have this conversation here all the time, and I think we can all agree that legality is not the beginning nor the end of equity.

Put another way: making something illegal does not solve the problem, and asserting that does does makes it harder to solve problems.

This response has to be the most aggressive misreading of privilege I've encountered in a while. Privilege IS NOT a system where everyone in a group gets better outcomes than another group. It IS NOT a system in which everyone in a group even receives all of the benefits of privilege. Yet it does describe systematic power imbalances that cause the majority of members in a group to receive benefits or the lack of oppression.

In any case, anec-data is not useful for argumentation.

This argument does not address the point. No one said that lucky means perfect; everything is relative.

It can be (and is) true that you can be the luckiest baby in history and have "crippling illness". You can both be privileged and disadvantaged on different axes at the same time.

I think you misunderstand racism and sexism. These refer to power structures that oppress people, not inborn disadvantages.

This is a pretty specious argument. Murder is illegal and punished severely, yet we still try and avoid getting killed.

I would posit that it is the same here; wage fixing is bad and punished, but wouldn't it be better if we had a faster mechanism for guaranteeing equity in treatment by corporations?