zen928

> And if it is a thing, one has to be serious about understanding what one can and cannot do about it

an understanding sharing much in common with the eye-sore casinos propped up slowly over time in towns and cities around me, especially: pity the denizens who participate, move on with my life.

Is it supposed to be surprising that someone having weight issues would have issues reliably tracking the impacts of actions that would lead to their weight?

Have any similar "favorite studies" on hand about alcoholics who underreport alcohol use and overreport abstaining? Punching down is a favorite pastime of mine too btw :)

Probably has something to do with finally coming out of the conjoined coin scams and NFT blockchain brain rot that crypto bros spent countless hours trying to manipulate financially illiterate people into being left to hold the bag on their rug pulls that were exposed on a bi-weekly basis, or something. Cute little speculative toy though :)

Is this where allowing this type of rhetoric on HN ultimately evolves to, dipshit climate change deniers from undeveloped third world countries spouting brainless propoganda counterpoints to "the narrative" that using oil on the scale that we do harms the environment?

extremely disappointing

The concern isn't about trading monkey lives for human lives, but instead that the component of needless torture and suffering is okay if it aids progress regardless of the effecacy of the outcome. I don't think people have as huge of a problem with monkeys being tested and dying in their trials more than they do about the lack of humanity and care about their position to the point of being dismissive.

yeah, I'd always trade monkey lives for human lives, but I'd also like the lives I trade to have been considered viable and worthwhile decisions to make from an ethical approach instead of being another number correlating to a large amount of attempts done. Saying similar to "I don't care if we kill 1000x more if anything at all improves" shows more of a lack of care to monkeys (i.e. their lives are being considered meaningless) than it does to defend the stance that killing more would be necessary to improve human lives.

Instead of pretending that you get to establish the rules for how your business receives transactions VS the defined systems, standards and legal accommodations that you're already implicitly and explicitly agreeing to when establishing your corporate entity, they should follow the established standards and look to engage in legal activism that aligns with their interests instead of blatantly violating the law.

because you're taking the authors ridiculous claim and downgrading it to be reasonable instead of critiquing the original claim, all of this stemming from you taking a quote out of context to make a point that no one was making.

the slice of the quote you responded with:

> It would be extremely obvious [...]

and the full claim with full proper context:

> It would be [...] obvious if your searches were [...] egregiously converted.

the key word being "egregiously", which is a response to the level of severity the author is making in their claim. trying to be an enforcer of conversational tone by repeatedly claiming how responses that you don't want to engage in are "aggressive" isn't conducive to productive discussion. no one's being overtly hostile, outside of you trying to hijack a discussion to exclusively entertain a nonsequitor.

Yeah, they just systematically genocide their citizens having the wrong heritage (Uyghurs), blackout entire cities that might dissent from their proposed governing systems (Hong Kong) and deny the right of sovereignty to established countries (Tibet, Taiwan) that "don't agree to everything". Not even the tip of the iceberg.

a phrase used to evade being suspended from advertiser-friendly media platforms by "changing" the intent of your statement from a potential threat to an expression of emotion (express anger at them in a game)

also as equally useless of a defense as 'just LARPing' if any of your other behavior shows different intentions and inconsistency with the group that would use these phrases, i.e. you don't play videogames

it's always felt off that someone genuinely believes that changing their phrasing would fool other people of their intent, like something that an actual child would come up as a legal defense

you can't interpolate user behavior on something that isn't used, but you can pretty quickly find the most affected groups to further remediate why that'd be the case

it's been pretty disappointing recently reading comments around here and slowly building the understanding that resistance to these types of systems haven't come from old-school "freedom" driven mindsets that spot and call out patterns that obstruct user agency or security to enable a culture of accountability VS a slow crawl to glorifying luddism born from simple apprehension to understanding the use of any additional changes in how development is viewed today

this discussion chain of "stats=bad actually." makes that distinction a little more clear

this is offset by taking your job slightly seriously when implementing gh actions for your org by understanding how they're resolved and pinning them to commit SHAs, like how github themselves recommend under their basic security guide

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/security-guides/security-...

after hearing similar stories from frontend developers who haven't even heard of "npm ci" or use range pinned dependencies on production systems, im almost never going to be sympathetic on blaming the package maintainers over developer ignorance following basic security guidelines

> Nice backpedaling. First it was "no one", now just "ignorant people".

I don't see backpedaling, I see a semi-concerted effort between two random individuals on what looks to be a prime opportunity to engage in their favorite pasttime: talking past the point and taking arguments with the least charitable interpretation to be able to definitively resolve a useless binary answer on a complicated subject.

you've been able to make them specify "no ignorant people" when they're making the claim, but why stop there? would any more drilling help qualify their statement further, like questioning the demographics of people that they interact with? how about questioning the racial makeup of their associates to point out their perspective COULD be biased towards specific types of thinking? have they surveyed and done single blind studies on finding out the proclaimable truth to the statement that "no one" truly makes this claim?

maybe they can adjust their statement to add more conditionals on what should be assumed premises: how about people who actively try to be illogical in arguments, they would disagree right? how about children who don't know anything about insurance, did they specify an age range where "no one" is applicable?

or is it possible you can read a statement like "no one would ___" to automatically not include people who would act/think/behave irrationally without needing a disclaimer and list of provided sources?

would it have been a good use of time to get any more clarification on the meaning of their statement with the included groups of people, or does the pedantic question framing to reach your "gotcha" and win the pointless online argument justify the narcissistic means?

and when you architect managing user privacy as a drawn-out process that won't even begin until another human responds in a completely manual engagement, i can immediately see the motivation of the above poster wanting administration to provide an answer without the response time being calculated in business days.

completely fair game to shortcut an outdated hostile process with your own hostility, not really an unexpected result (e.g.: web scraping VS using an inaccessible API). it's an unacceptable approach in a modern context.

the distinction I think you're trying to make isn't necessarily racism, but a bias toward ignorance-promoting tendencies to remain ignorant which can have the same result: insulation of thoughts, ideas, decisionmaking from outside views

i don't think it's wrong to say that you could probably find some improvement from an outside perspective and that you may be missing something if you aren't, but I don't think it's a simple enough problem that you can reduce aversion towards change to any single motivation without trying to understand their reasoning

it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty when trying to shut down conversation

they're 'confusing' you for the parent poster of the comment chain you directly replied to in the discussion that you inserted yourself into, something understandable from anyone who spends time on sites that have parent/child discussion chains.

the confusion is solely yours alone, but for any other new users to the site you're taking up the role of continuing the discussion by commenting on reply chains inside that discussion, so having a reply to your comment that mistakenly mentions "your" previous post can be immediately understood in this context as the parents post and not as a misdirected attack that needs to be personally identified before continuing casual discussion.

do you need any more context to respond with honest intentions?

wow, real discussion about language!

> Do you speak any languages other than English?

yes

> Gender in linguistics is better referred to as noun classes and should not be conflated with societal notions of gender.

grammatical gender has been referred to as synonymous to noun classes for decades, obviously varies language to language but this isn't a correction but rather your opinion :)

> And calling a language outdated is deeply ignorant, and borders on xenophobic.

what do you mean? im divorcing any notion of region, politics or cultural context to something as broad as a language like the article is doing! i dont REALLY mean anything negative when trying to discuss weaknesses of these classes of languages by making broad statements, im just noting that the field of research would make these choices inappropriate as a comparison to english using the same sterile tone as the article.

> And Hangul is not a language, it’s a writing system.

i meant writing in korean (too implicitly, my mistake), does it change that statement? :)

it's funny that this statement is brought forward as a problem in trying to assert awareness to closed thinking but the reason that this statement is a "problem" is carefully constructed to avoid any social, political or cultural dialog around discussing the "problem" in a closed mind fashion

research and documentation should strive to be the most convenient forms to be accessed and read by others; shifting to outdated romantic languages that tie gender to objects or to region-specialized character heavy ineffecient languages that already rely on english loan words to convey modern ideas doesn't seem like the answer either right? maybe some critique on how outdated other common languages are compared to emerging cultural concepts would provide a better point to how language should evolve instead of becoming frankensteined as a point of cultural prestige?

im down for switching to hangul if it were noted that e.g. conveying ideas and topics we commonly see in scientific research were able to be easier processed and understood, but that's not what the subtle "english bad" tone is trying to convey here

paired with diminished taste and continued mentions of potential chronic ongoing fatigue and mental fog, it probably got mentally weighted higher as something to be defensive toward

it's a pretty primal human fear to be stripped one by one of your senses, considering it's not as common in other cases of illness VS the sudden worldwide common repeated exposure to covid when in some public places, added on with some general anxiety from covid it's not entirely hard to understand others viewpoints being emotionally skewed

yep. these kind of thought experiments are cute but it's so easy to just immediately dismiss bad science that wants to ignore historical record to write paragraphs of fanfiction

the main crux of these arguments always depends on how it's hard to prove something didn't happen without exact historical evidence for every single organism in every single recorded geologic period, which is a terminating thought to actually holding a rational conversation. OK, cool, then we also: live in a simulation, are observed by aliens or influenced by aliens, move to alternate realities every time we sleep, etc. wow, so "interesting"!!

Actually I didn't take anything, I pirated it. Pirating isn't stealing an existing resource, might want to learn what these basic terms mean.

You don't need to be personally offended that people dislike controversial billionaires, it's really not a big deal.

as someone never involved and never interested in being involved with anyone who has a mindset of cuckolding your company with VC interests, agree. my level of commitment isnt related to my level of attention and value to what I work on.

building the toxic association in your head that others have to match your own processes to "prove value" is a stunning display of lacking empathy, in the sense that you aren't looking to understand others motivations by superficially dismissing them to impose your exact working schedule and mental model onto others.

anyone right now with a remote job because of covid that stayed remote because of the perceptible lack of negative impact (showing this same scenario but from the context of upper management) would be a hypocrite to not also disagree with this stance.

This is such an insanely retrospective analysis that you either alienate or lose anyone who would want to agree to your message. Yeah, 30 years later we can see the effect of a slightly "lax" global nuclear policy after isolating a single point in time that catalyzed several historical invasions from then to present day, but "just taking it seriously" isnt a discussion. Any pathway we could have taken from that moment could have easily escalated any numerous amount of tensions, plenty of which have completely lost any hint of understanding their contexts. Pretending that taking the path you can justify as the solution to our problems NOW is a few steps away from prompting others to write historical fanfiction, but I'd probably rather you spent time with chatgpt amusing those curiosities.

i dunno, I think denigrating vulnerable citizens as a way to justify irrational reductions to your countries education system as a result of learned propoganda from a political party that values having power over it's citizens would make you infinitely closer to the average north korean sympathizer than I am

i also notice you skipped any prior points to give a vapid reply while also doing the same thing you accuse me of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror), so I'll correct myself from cringe libertarian to cringe lite-republican and highlight that point here as a way to lightly confirm that you don't have anything of substance to contribute besides mindless outrage

> This is insane. What are we doing?

expecting academia to be a job training program, reprimanding higher level general eduction as "33%" waste, trying to address the symptom (high loans) instead of the disease (why are they high) and pretending that cutting required courseloads wouldn't also reciprocate to higher tuition costs like every single time financial aid services like FAFSA increase, repeatedly posting out-of-touch "basket weaving" examples instead of allegedly any single other degree path with "bullshit degrees", having your only argument to discharging loans be that you can't repossess knowledge like you can cars, pretending this is an issue about students not holding "commitments" instead of addressing targeted bilking of a vulnerable group of people, trying to set up a cringe libertarian stance about government stepping in to "force" you to take courses and "distortions" from "political agendas" and anti-union sentiments completely irrelevant to any other issues anyone is talking about, creating huge fake scenarios of being hundreds of thousands in debt for fake degrees and passing this off as an even slightly applicable scenario to others, ... etc

> Our 18 year old's graduate high school devoid of marketable skills

it's really unfortunate for them that they had dead weight watching over them for 18 years, waiting for them to fail and to then immediately turn blame on someone else. it's not unknowable what they're being taught. the problem more and more seems to be that people like you have a voice in the world that someone might be fooled into believing is valid.

Kindness starts by not immediately assuming the motivations of others to be malicious, and to understand why someone else would perform their actions. Here, it's very clear from how all paths are laid out that sending messages to you early even if you won't act on them is only ever a net-benefit if you remove your ego from the equation. Soothing fragile minds and compromise aren't the same thing.

a company is made of: _____