bradjohnson

Commons did a great episode on the Irvings' dynasty a few years back: https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/dynasties-2-the-irvings/

No. That is an entirely incorrect interpretation of the study.

No. This changes nothing about climate models.

supposed CO2 problem

No. This study has changed precisely nothing about how we measure CO2 in the atmosphere. Or climate change in general.

No. Climate scientists did not base all of their current models on a 1980 study about how much CO2 trees can technically absorb.

The messaging of this article is causing people in this very comment section to conclude that climate change is progressing slower (or even not progressing at all) based on a revision of a plant CO2 uptake study that was done in the 1980s.

Like it or not climate science is extremely political and selectively reported science (which this is) that is presented to the public needs to account for the context in which it exists or it is no better than propaganda. The fact that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is primarily funded by the US Department of Energy is plenty of reason to be suspicious of its motivations. They have a vested interest in shaping the public's perception of energy production and its impact on the climate.

Yes, this specific messaging feels motivated by the bottom lines of energy producers. The information doesn't actually change what we've measured regarding progress of climate change, but it's vague enough that plenty of people in the comments here are confused and acting like climate change isn't real after all.

What are the "aesthetics of gambling"? Do all games involving dice rolls resemble that aesthetic? If gambling aesthetics change to resemble popular game aesthetics, does that expand the list of games you'll ban?

Random Card is rated E.

I really believe that you are approaching this in good faith, so I will do the same. I don't have time to really dig into this deeply with you so these brief justifications of my stance will have to suffice. I don't understand some of your tangents, and you will have to forgive me for not addressing the reddit or sports stuff.

Re: tech bro

The tech bro thing comes across most apparently in the pro-VC slant of this site (inextricable, I know). There is a high proportion of believers in a fantasy meritocracy where current wealth concentration is justifiable due to the sheer genius of "founders". This is very much a tech-bro way of thinking.

The way HN regularly reduces socio-political problems into a technological gap is another tech-bro "thing". When someone suggests that a country switch its currency to crypto to eliminate state corruption, or suggests that biometrics scanners be installed at ports of entry to eliminate slavery and humans rights abuses, that is a tech-bro opinion. It is different from a blue collar environment because the people on this website are extremely insulated from the social issues that come up on here. Nonetheless, they feel like they have an obvious solution to a version of the problem that they've concocted in their head based on a 2 second glance at a headline. It reminds me of this Adam Savage video that I think is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP4CKn86qGY

Re: obnoxiously male

This is exemplified by the high confidence and combativeness in this and other similar comment sections on HN, but let's just talk about this comment section.

Commenters here are confidently asserting that the author's lived experience is wrong because of a certain interpretation of the words that they typed in the article. When she says that someone made comments that made her feel othered, the reaction here is to disbelieve and downplay. That is very much a "obnoxiously male" way of approaching things. In more balanced spaces, the presumption would be that this blog post was made for a reason and that the person who made it is valid and rational by default. Nobody here has any additional information, and they are asserting that their interpretation of her words is correct even though they are heavily influenced by their own biases of gender, class, and otherwise.

You can't just say random garbage and use it to justify a wack conclusion, dude.

I suspect you might even be overestimating.

The politics of the situation might make a perceived lack of technological solution a convenient scapegoat, that is true. However, from the HN comments section, suggesting a technological solution to a human rights abuse problem doesn't move the needle, because it is not a lack of technology that has caused the human rights abuse. You are responding to a non-issue that hasn't been presented to you and that you have no authority to solve.

I love hacker news.

Hate to break it to you

Do you?

not the same sort of risky move

I don't see it as materially different. I also don't consider this to be an example of either of them being genius visionaries. I actually think it's an extremely straightforward tactic to cannibalize part of your business to break into another bigger market.

Apple didn't stop selling iPods, you know? I don't really get why it was more risky for Apple to market the iPhone than for Facebook to decide not to shut down Instagram once they acquired it.

The differences in the literal creation of the entity are immaterial to my point.

Eh, Zuck did the same with Instagram/Facebook: “If we don't create the thing that kills Facebook, someone else will.”

You missed the mark here. He was talking about the Russian state propaganda site that the GP was trying to find on google: "PolitNavigator".

What is the source of this claim?

Me, I guess. I've released MacOS apps for free and never felt any expectation to provide indefinite support. They do what they are supposed to do and people still use them.

why I'm working on bugfix now?

Idk that's on you brother.

no way I'm doing get payed once support forever or give away for free support forever

Why do you keep saying that "support forever" is the default here? Nobody would expect that except if you were releasing under a subscription model.

Plus, this app doesn't need support. Come on.

I truly don't understand your desire to remove Linux file permissions. I also don't get why you think it's difficult to do so. There are plenty of ways for you to enable yourself to hose your machine without having to enter a password.

That might add another step but I think it is unlikely to help reduce the number of victims. If someone is willing to bring up the run prompt and paste whatever they have in the clipboard they are also likely to be social engineered into clicking yes on a dialog that tells them to allow clipboard modification.

"Bad" is relative. Someone may believe that something is industry standard and not worth talking about e.g. crunch time in games. Also, plenty of people internalize the bad bits of their jobs and won't think to discuss them unless you ask specifically. It's like asking for feedback from colleagues to their face, unbounded requests for criticism are psychologically hard for humans to answer.

Asking for feedback at the end of the loop is great. A bunch of mega corporations are specifically instructed to give you absolutely nothing, but it's always worth asking.

"what sucks about this job?" [...] I frequently get high-signal responses from it

That's fair, it is your experience, but I think it's about whether you're on the same wavelength about what level of corporate suck is standard and acceptable. I don't love the framing of this being specifically an "earlier-career" issue but I'm an IC and ICs are not a borg that I have assimilated into (yet), so some have internalized varying amounts of corporate suck relative to me.

For example: I find in some places, low-autonomy is just considered par for the course, and when asked "what sucks?" certain ICs might respond "this job is the best one I've ever had, I have no complaints." But, if asked "what part of project delivery is most frustrating?" or another more specific question they might say "requirements change sometimes arbitrarily and we're expected to respond to any changes without changing the delivery target." The point I was trying to make is specificity helps to get higher signal answers when you don't understand your interviewer's baseline. One man's yuck is another man's yum or whatever.

"what's your funnel look like for this role?"

I think this is a fine question to ask. It is fairly corpo-speak sounding, but it doesn't communicate the same "Do you like the others better than me?" vibe as the question you contrast it with. It communicates that you are evaluating them, not asking them if their evaluation of you is going ok or not. If you're interviewing with the C-levels then they also have enough information to give you a clear response, and the answer will give you details about how long it will take to reach a hiring decision.

I like the middle two questions a lot, and I try to ask them as well. I think the other two are flawed, though:

What are the bad things about this job?

Too vague. Most interviewers won't be ready to shit talk their employer with this question and will say "nothing." A better question would be some variation of "What would you change about the way your team works if you could?" Frame the question properly so that they don't set the parameters themselves.

How many other people are being interviewed and how do I compare?

Comes off very insecure and gives you no useful information. It will only reflect poorly on you.

Ok sounds good

Ok, I was just providing a link for you. If you wanted to discuss whether cheating is good in this specific scenario, you should have put that as your comment to the parent.

It's extremely easy to find yourself, but here: https://qz.com/96793/chinese-students-and-their-parents-figh...

It's also something that somebody with little to no previous knowledge of machine learning could whip up with OpenCV in a weekend. Maybe they could hire an undergrad to do it as a student project instead of giving Amazon unfettered access to their surveillance data?

It was established that, whilst analytics could not confidently detect a theft, but they could detect a person with a bike

Really groundbreaking stuff. I'm so happy public funds are being used to pump surveillance data to a mega-corporation so they can tell us who does or does not have a bike.