HN user
Depends on the situation. If it is a clear cut case or you're a mentor/senior to the reviewee, a more direct tone is fine. If it's a matter of opinion or it's a peer review then a more considerate tone would come across better.
blm is the status quo, that’s why speaking against blm gets people deplatformed.
If illegal immigrants aren't given free food and boarding in a hotel they're literally in a concentration camp!
I'm not particularly interested in some "studies" that come out with statistics saying its hard not to be obese when poor. The fact of the matter is that it's possible to eat relatively healthy affordably (e.g. rice, potatoes, food on sale/discount), and that if you were truly poor you should be saving money by eating less food.
“Less likely”, “more at the mercy”, it still comes down to the individuals choices, it’s not that hard to not be obese when poor.
Diversity of what prevents group think?
Any stock has a lower bound of 0 and no upper bound, so the answer is of course that no one knows.
That there are reasons other than racism that partially explain the achievement gap between races.
Cool demo. I tried using manim a while ago but struggled setting it up and creating anything worthwhile. This looks like a solid and simple starting point to expand from, thanks!
these tests/lectures are defined by other humans
Are driving tests not designed by other humans? Drivers test writer could already design the tests in such a way that would have them favour certain groups. They ensure a minimum level of competency, which seems reasonable to expect from those who are voting or raising children.
Next thing you know, you now have a handpicked elite eligible to vote
This seems like the slippery slope fallacy.
not yet very universal in a few countries, US included
Who isn't allowed to vote?
Parties write the test together and it must have x% approval from both parties in order to pass and be amended in the future. It is short and simple, covering only basic topics at the federal level that are relevant to the whole population regardless of location. E.g. What person currently holds position A, who was the first B, what is the purpose department C, etc. These can be multiple choice with fairly clear answers. Test would be released 1 year before each election, can be re-taken as many times as you'd like, and you need y% to pass. This seems like it would be a good start that would weed out people who are completely uninformed and unwilling to do the bare minimum to vote.
I don't follow how states evolving/devolving into democracies being a general trend supports the initial claim that universal suffrage minimizes the number of failed states?
Are there not measures we could put in place to limit the possibility of this? E.g. Write a very basic and non-partisan test with clear answers and no room for subjectivity. Require x% of each party to approve the original test and any amendments in the future.
Why does bitcoin appreciate in value vs. fiat currency?