HN user

souldeux

132 karma
Posts0
Comments31
View on HN
No posts found.
Buttplug MCP 1 year ago

certainly not how one would want sexual interaction

speak for yourself

418 I’m a teapot 2 years ago

As a former engineering manager: no, I don't want to have a discussion about the hypothetical emoji. I want the engineer to put a rocketship in their commit message to have a slightly brighter day, and I want to acknowledge that someone else made a positive comment about it.

If you are genuinely at the point in your life where "people saying they like things" is the same as ... what you're describing ... please be aware of the emotional impact you're having on the people around you.

418 I’m a teapot 2 years ago

All those small discussions were essentially pointless

Were they pointless, or were they positive feedback about a thing you personally disliked?

I feel like this starts with an agreeable premise. Some fraud is egregious, costly, and/or easy to detect. These low-hanging or high-impact cases are most worth pursuing. At some point you reach diminishing returns, where the amount of time / effort / capital you're putting in to eliminating fraud outstrips the losses from the fraud itself.

I don't know that I agree with the ethical conclusion that the optimal amount of fraud is therefore non-zero. The leap from "anti-fraud efforts are expensive" to these sentences in the final paragraph was not, in my opinion, convincingly made here:

We should, as a society, accept non-zero amounts of benefits fraud. We should accept non-zero amounts of cheating on taxes.

The study is a bit more interesting than this title suggests.

An intervention aimed to discourage participants from choosing the cheating-enabling environment based on social norm information did not have the expected effect; on the contrary, it backfired. In summary, the results suggest that people low in moral character are likely to eventually dominate cheating-enabling environments, where they then cheat extensively.

In other words: we tried to tell the cheaters "you wanna cheat? fine, you can only play with the other cheating pieces of crap." The intent was for this to be a punishment, but it turns out they like it. The strategy backfired.

Don't dismiss this as a "well duh" thing, there's cool stuff in here!

[dead] 5 years ago

Stallman (rms as he is normally referred to, maybe Richard Stallman is his slave name or something(I'm joking)) was working out some of the finer points of programming when his critics were still peeing in their pants.

Written by, and for, a specific audience.

[dead] 6 years ago

A rambling and condescending look at nothing in particular.