throwaway_98554

Putting the mandatory sign up AFTER the user chooses/uploads his picture is insulting.

Disabilities are not binary; it's not perfect health VS quadriplegic.

For some people, it's just harder to do everyday things. It doesn't mean they can't move around. And for people getting older or with a degenerative disease, continuing to do things normally is also a matter of pride.

To put it in obvious terms, it's like saying that we can add 3-4 stairs at the main entrance, because anybody who don't like stair can enter via the damp alleyway in the back, besides the dumpsters.

Why do you think the price increase is fair?

If anything I would expect it to go down as computation and memory get cheaper.

FYI your link is broken.

100% diversity in those pictures.

We did it. Well done everyone.

That people NEED to be holding something is also funny. Can't have empty hands. Who stages those pictures?

Unless he put the promise in the sell contract, in which case he can sue Facebook and stop them from doing this nasty move, he should be getting all the blowback he's getting and more.

You are right. Some of the sibling replies argue the contrary by using a sleight of hand; stating the desire to associate from only one of the two parties.

Take for example the relationship between a man and woman.

If both want to live with each other, everything is fine.

What if the man wants to associate with the woman, but she doesn't? Do we force her to accept the man? Does he have a right to access her?

Obviously that's silly. We all know that the relationship is only valid if BOTH parties consent.

And yet in regards to neighborhoods the sibling replies act as if only the man's opinion mattered. "That Jew wanted to come in but was refused! People were not free to associate!" They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association.

I suppose you are referring to this part:

"In the painting, the black seeds indicate that the fruit has reached maturity," Wehner says.

There's also the possibility the painter simply decided to add black seeds because it would look more like a mature fruit.

I think you missed the point the parent comment was making.

Obviously "finance guy" would not only breed other "finance guys". However if the society consumes a majority of its productive members without insuring their reproduction, then they'll be selected against.

Ah, this is pretty close to the same claim that "JayMan" made once when explaining to me how "gay people shouldn't exist, evolutionarily speaking" (because, of course, the gays would be outcompeted genetically by non-gays, and the identity wouldn't persist, right?)

That's such a weird position and obviously made by someone who doesn't understand evolution, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it here. It's the equivalent of saying that diseases/cancer/handicaps couldn't exist because "evolution". That is not what parent is talking about when underlying the risks of hindering reproduction for a whole class of citizens.

I couldn't feel any emotion in the parent comment, only a description of how things are perceived to be. What makes you think there is resentment?

If I said the world is ruled by France, would you say I'm antiwhite?

That's not really surprising, is it?

Any minimally functional group eventually lead to opportunities.

The outgroup (women in this case) want to access those opportunities. Any push back against that will be labeled as misogynistic or ridiculed.

Men have no other choices than to open up the group and let it become just another open space for everyone.

What is surprising is how some groups: 1) just lay down and accept this unilateral loss... 2) even when it is never reciprocated.

The only remaining legal way to separate is via money. In other words: fuck the poor, they are not allowed to decide with whom they associate.

Instead of trying to fix the problem by allowing non-monetary ways to segregate, which would be available to everyone, people are busy trying to universalize the problem.

To answer your question: you're not an asshole, but you're the only one without a broken leg... and we'll break it to make things fair to everyone.

Of the 235 homicides so far this year in Chicago, just 10 of the victims were white:

Race statistics for victims. Do you also have them for perpetrators?

By training our CycleGAN model on street-view images of houses before and after extreme weather events (e.g. floods, forest fires, etc.)

Will it also show my home from the cold north in a longer and warmer summer, full of flowers and hummingbirds?

Or are "consequences" always negative, whatever the direction (cold/hot) of the climate change?

Except the first one requires a subscription, and the second one talks about heterosexual, not homosexual transmission.

I'm open to seeing the HIV stats of heterosexual VS homosexual African data. Can you link it?

IRC is still there while all the other fads are gone.

"(...)Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.

This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error."

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austri...

Great input.

As a short form :

"I'm not running to the top, I'm running away from the bottom."

We all understood what he meant. But if you can provide a superior alternative conveying the same meaning succinctly, please do.

It isn't slow, nor click-driven.

On the contrary, because I know my users are on a desktop, most actions can be done with keyboard shortcuts.

This means you haven't tried it. Which means you're talking about something you don't know.

Dear old lady shouting at clouds,

The web is not about me. But the websites I create are not for everyone. They are for my users.

My users are professionals, on desktop, with a mouse and keyboard.

Knowing who are my users allows me to do better design. I make the best experience for THEM. Not for you, nor for all your friends using different hardware.

It doesn't mean I don't care about loading time or how things are displayed on the screen. It means I do so knowing in which environments it will happen. And yes, it might means you will be excluded.

Thefts, lies, frauds can and do happen everywhere. People follow incentives. If they can get away with it, many will do it. Be it investors trying to cash out with an IPO, or administrators of a government program.

The question is, what do you once you find out these people? To the gallows? Allow the blame to fall on the inevitable scapegoats? Inconsequential fine?

No, you are limited the number of children you'd have.

You can have a much bigger effect by getting rid of OTHER people.

Limiting your own consumption is completely counter-productive, as it leaves the resources to be consumed by those who do not share the same worries. They will simply have more resource available to increase their number and influence. (It's similar to those worrying about overpopulation and deciding to not having children : it's simply making sure the genes of those worrying won't make it to the next generation.)

In a non-policed commons situation, the only time it makes sense to try to shame people into consuming less is if they are your competition and you want to get rid of them.

No, I won't pardon your non-apology. He explicitly told you that diversity is an empty term and explained why. You even demonstrated it yourself in your other comment: you don't care about diversity, you care about people being judged on their competence alone.

You -say- you care about diversity, but that's not the explanation you've given. At best diversity is a tool to be used in the very particular case where it would help competence representation. By your comment, it would be in the case of untrue stereotypes.

"Exposure to the people we have those narratives about shows us how wrong they are."

The problem is that studies have shown that most stereotypes are true. (Really!)

This brings me to the next point : you somehow fail to mention the cases where it would be counterproductive to push for diversity, even if they are most cases. (At least for your stated goal.)

So which is it? Do you pursue diversity, or competence representation? If it's competence, will you accept to openly fight against diversity?

He made a point. You answered by avoiding the point. Instead you relied on dismissiveness, miscategorization, appeal to emotions and a little bit of passive-aggressiveness.

As per HN guidelines : "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

This subject appears dear to you, so perhaps you want to try again?

"Either you hire people regardless of their genders/religious group/sexual orientation or you make a conscious choice to reject candidates which are not in your approved list of "diversity" (whatever that means)."

Great, now I know how to frame someone using Bitcoin.

1. Select a victim 2. Every time you are about to make a Bitcoin transaction, send an email to the victim's address requesting the amount you are about to send. (Bonus point if you can get directly into the spam folder.) 3. Send bitcoins as you intended to do.

Now lay back and wait for your victim to be linked to your shady activities.

(I'm writing this as a critique of the technique used and conclusions reached in the article. Hopefully the investigation has something more robust.)

As another poster mentioned, "people will find just about any reason to believe they are better than other people".

Your intuition about racism/xenophobia is probably correct. But that's not the interesting question, given how widespread it is. What is more thought-provoking is why did this kind of behavior evolve? What was the advantage? Is it still advantageous today?

Because many people would get upset if "my-political-party" was hiring team of editors to change the wiki articles.

And if they are indeed getting paid, the organisation might have an important turnover. By using a single account (or multiple shared accounts; I doubt there's only one), you keep the 'prestige' you have built.

Your 1 week old new recruit can edit texts left and right while most people think it's a legit old wikipedians tidying stuff up.