wbronitsky

I wonder, do you find that this tone and tactic encourages people to continue to discuss things with you?

The GP manages to talk about facts surrounding the issue, yet you continue to attack them with little substance. You don't provide counter examples, you simply continue to attack. This helps no one find more truth. Please stop.

Wow, what a terrible way to have a discussion with someone. There are so many more ways to state this than to stick out your finger and say "YOU WRONG". It becomes impossible to read any discussions on this site when people take this tone.

And yet, the only time any states seceded from the United States, the US declared war on them to bring them back into the Union, then went on to win that war and brought the states back into the Union.

I cannot verify this statement. Do you have anything we can look to to verify this?

This is a pretty "I know better than you" take, one that is eliding pretty important facts, like that this election was blatantly illegal. I, for one, would probably choose to not vote in an illegal election that purports to speak for me as well.

Additionally, it is not helpful to "suggest" that a majority of a region take part in illegal activity. It would seem to me that not every election is democratic; this reductive argument that elections, write large, equal democracy does not help find a solution

> So, I would say the issue needs to be studied with greater depth than it sucks for the guy being bullied. What is the greater effect on the entire population?

"We should not discount something that harms 100% of people who experience it, and helps no one, because that behavior could be beneficial to our society" is an argument for eugenics as well.

If I read this correctly, your post can be summarized as: "Disclaimer, people should have rights... yadda yadda yadda. But..... would it be so bad if they didn't have rights?"

I, for one, don't care at all about the positive externalities of taking away people's rights, nor do I see the merit in discussing them. It normalizes the taking away of rights when we discuss how great it could be when you aren't allowed access to information and freedom of movement.

Wow, what a needless, toxic comment that attacks a person when it could easily attack an idea. It is amazing to me how prolific these types of arguments have become on this platform. I don’t understand why we continue to push arguments that equate to “you disagree with me and therefore are an idiot who cannot see what is right in front of them”

And this exchange exposes us to the fallacy of this argument in that it cannot be proved one way or another. One post says the reaction will be one way, the next asserts the opposite, and neither have relevant facts that can support their argument.

Yes, all of them should be protected by the US government so they cannot simply be sold to the highest bidder. Once these ancient trees are gone, they will never come back. The Parks Service seems to be able to keep these alive and in good shape for the benefit of all

Again, you throw around a Straw Man to service your point of view. I'm not here for this. Good day.

Who said "you can't arrest people who cross the border illegally"? I will not discuss this with you while you continue to whip out Straw Man arguments, nor will I engage with your aggressive manner.

There are so many comments attacking OP for the straw man that he dislikes ICE because they enforce immigration law. I highly doubt that is why OP dislikes ICE. Instead, it is much more likely that he dislikes the tactics used by ICE, such as separating families, and locking people in "ice boxes".

The comments attacking the straw man are seemingly only written to satisfy an attack against an other, which here seems to be the other that "supports illegal immigration", and I don't believe these attacks further the conversation. Nowhere do we have evidence that OP or anyone defending him is in favor of fully open borders, an accusation thrown around more than once in these comments.

Regardless of the "why", the more interesting discussion is the "should", as in "should people be allowed to rescind their open source work for any reason". Otherwise, we are just wading back into a political discussion where people are not interested in listening, only fighting.

I'm wondering where you got the idea that this developer dislikes ICE because it enforces immigration law. That, on its face, makes little sense. It is quite clear that OP dislikes ICE because of the tactics it uses to enforce immigration law, not the enforcement of it outright.

I believe this discussion would go a lot more smoothly without pedantic, black and white arguments being thrown around with the thought that your argument is the correct one, and just needs to be crammed a little harder into everyone else before they get it.

EDIT: If you don't like what I have to say, rebut it, don't downvote it. Silencing me does nothing but make you feel good.

I did that, but I cannot go flagging every message. To me, it is quite clear that this is abuse, and the account should be banned without me having to sleuth about for more posts like this.

can we ban this user? They are posting incoherent nonsense that seems computer generated

You're not my manager

From the article: "It was unclear whether Ms. James’s initial findings of new Sackler funds would influence the parties that have agreed to the settlement. "

You are correct, and I should have clarified. There is not enough evidence here for the New York Times to suggest laundering, that is my coloring of the situation.

The article addresses what the news is. it is quite notable that anyone would move $1bb out of the US while facing the possibility of HUGE civil judgements. Moreover, my reading is that this money was routed in such a way that it looks like obfuscation, a key component of money laundering.

More concisely, here is a quote, directly from the article: "But the attorneys general of a majority of states, including New York and Massachusetts, are balking at the proposed deal, contending that the Sackler family has siphoned off company profits that should be used to pay for the billions of dollars in damage caused by opioids."

I'm not sure what your argument is. Is it that it is fine that our healthcare is like shopping at an Apple store? Or that medical costs cannot be predicted? Or that we should be happy with the system we have?

Other than pedantry, what are you trying to get across?

These blanket statements about “violence” are mostly devoid of meaning. What are we defining as violence in this context such that someone could be “smarter” to avoid it? Is the suggestion that someone getting assaulted should be “smarter” to solve their problem? What about protesters that are being attacked by the police? What about a country that is being invaded? I don’t understand how intelligence can fix “violence” or what “violence” even is in this context.

Moreover, asserting that we need “world wide consensus” strikes me as an incredibly naïve point. Is there anything that everyone agrees on? Are we stuck with violence until everyone agrees? Grand statements about getting along don’t seem to chip away at the problem at all. In fact, I would assert that they are fiercely counterproductive; one can say we all need to get along and until then we have no culpability.

Is your argument that the solution to violence is no violence? I believe that assertion is self evidently useless and harmful to the discussion. We would do a lot better to try and raise the tenor of the conversation by discussing interesting viewpoints, not asserting that the solution to something is to simply stop doing it

You are laying down some hefty assumptions here and I'm not sure they are fair.

You seem to indicate that Stripe has consistency issues with their payment APIs. Have you seen this? Having worked directly on these APIs (note, I said ON and not WITH, I worked at Stripe on these products), it would greatly surprise me to see non-trivial consistency issues with their data model that surrounds money movement. Stripe might be on Mongo, but assuming that they have consistency issues because of that is quite a leap. Remember, Stripe is regulated federally and in most states, as well as in their international jurisdictions, so the claim you are making would be one regulators might be interested in if there is any veracity.

You also seem to be insisting that there are no "serious people" at Stripe, and that might be true! At least, I hope no one has mistaken me for a "serious person". But what does "serious" mean here and why can only "serious people" work on financial infrastructure? Moreover, why do "serious people" not see Mongo as a "real database"? In fact, what is a "real database" to you, other than something that has transactions?

I'm very interested in your answer here; while I had my issues with Mongo in my 2.5 years at Stripe, most of the issues I encountered I would lump into the "this is a trade-off consequence" bucket, as Mongo solved a whole lot of other issues for me. The other main bucket I would have used was "distributed database problem". I know Stripe had no plans, nor should they, to move to a non-distributed data store.

No one is forcing you to use Stripe, but I would suggest that attacking Stripe for their technology usage is not very useful.

It is always amazing to me that people downvote actual anecdotes that highlight the arguments being made, while at the same time upvote rampant speculation that has no basis in fact.

Having worked at Stripe, these exact examples came up more than once. I can verify their authenticity.

Mark led engineering teams at Stripe. That is a fact that your assumptions cannot disprove.

Why can't this person be a serice worker, a gig worker or a white collar worker? What about living in a camper with a generator tells you this person is "a drug dealer, fence or pimp"? Are there not other explanations other than labeling this person/these people as groups you do not like?

This implies that you have data around if drug users and non-drug users who commit crimes are punished differently, or that you are just flippantly responding to a well thought out comment. In the spirit of HN, I'll assume it is the former. Can you show that data?

I don't think your statements are as self evident as you think they are. You are personally attacking the poster above you, and then just spinning words around to make a point you agree with. We understand you agree with yourself; would you care to help us try and agree with you?

Personally, I agree with your statements. I do not see the issue that you see with wanting all people to be comfortable in their workplace. James Damore outright stated that he believes that women are genetically inferior at the job he does. I don't grasp how people miss how destructive that is.