Blot2882
Joined 2 years ago
Karma
105
Submissions
28
Member since
Aug 5
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 1 year ago
> real people don't talk about their stalkers so much. When I was stalked and harassed I kept the details light and didn't provide much in the way of actual community details because I went to the FBI and local police to deal with it
You actually provided more details here than he did, so I guess that's not true.
>> Suffice it to say, I ended up traveling for most of the year, all the while having to handle various abusers and stalkers who harassed and attacked me and my family (and continue to do so).
If anything, I am more doubtful you had stalkers since you are also in this thread saying this[1]. What an unsympathetic reply. You certainly don't come off like you're aware of the stress and fear that can bring if your answer to other people being stalked is "rethink your life choices."
> Sounds to me like you just need to take a break from the internet friend. If you're that high profile that you're getting hit over and over, maybe you need to rethink your life choices. If it bothers you that much especially.
Comment · 2 years ago
> Labeling something "flamebait" is a characterization of the tone of an argument, and whether it appears to be designed to incite low-quality discussion/flaminess
Which is also not measurable and manipulates the reader. I don't see the readers comment as flamebait. Just because misinformation comes from right-wing media and people have eyes to see that and call it out doesn't make it flamebait. What should we call it? An unknown amount of totally apolitical misinformation from [insert party here]?
> It's still an euphemism designed to manipulate the listener, and is something that is impossible to prove factually
As are most arguments when we use phrases like "a lot", "similar to", etc. If you dismiss things based on such broad criteria, I am puzzled by your comment history. You have told users they are bad and support Tyranny[1], said it's malicious to support infrastructure spending[2], and called Snowden a narcissist (which proves he had no altruistic motives?)[3].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41434473 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41375616 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406143
These are not emotional statements supported by an argument, these are arguments supported by emotional pleas.
And a simple cmd+f shows "Emotional plea" is a phrase you do not use sparingly either. You are using this word very broadly. If you cannot hold yourself to the same standards you hold other users, you aren't debating in good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41375535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41375602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41206808
You have obviously constructed a belief system that makes it impossible to engage with things you disagree with while allowing yourself to lash out at users however you see fit and bring up whatever politics suits you.
> Copy-pasting journal article links is not an argument
An argument is not a theoretical bottle exercise for one to wordsmith their way towards not engaging with the facts. In the real world, we have eyes.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241258026?i...
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-doze...
Comment · 2 years ago
> "the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right" is not a fact - it's an emotional plea
The term "flamebait" is also an emotional plea, but we trust adults to use their brain and decide how to report that in good faith.
"Biblical Flood" is a euphemism indicating "a lot of" misinformation (which is a fact [1]) and anyone not being willfully obtuse could interpret what the commenter meant. but I suppose it's easier to immediately dismiss that very true statement than engage with it.
Comment · 2 years ago
No one is arguing Java is expressive.
Comment · 2 years ago
Thanks for your insight!
Comment · 2 years ago
That's interesting. I've heard complaints about Kotlins standard library in comments like this[1]. I understand they may be nitpicks but they seem annoying in practice.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotlin/comments/mh2z5u/comment/gt2n...
Comment · 2 years ago
I'm not sure how someone could see Kotlin as more expressive than Python, unless I am misinterpreting what expressive means. Python has a good language features and helpful abstractions like list comprehensions.
What makes Kotlin more expressive? I understand it has some functional features but I've never seen anything dramatically flexible.
Comment · 2 years ago
No hack job needed on someone who can't call themselves news without going to jail.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/all-the-texts-fox-ne...
Comment · 2 years ago
Not really? They control the ToS and are not under special obligation to enforce them correctly from the government.
Comment · 2 years ago
> There were a large body of studies showing that Ivermectin helped with COVID
No, there wasn't.
Comment · 2 years ago
> But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake
That was not misinformation. The idea that Ivermectin was helpful in dealing with CoVID was determined from a meta analysis that included a fake study that nobody can confirm happened and even used dead people. It was pushed by grifting doctors who sell Ivermectin.
Yes, if you have parasites and take an anti-parasite drug you're gonna feel better, whether you have CoVID or not.
> the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID
It halted it as much as it could considering 30% of people didn't complete vaccination. I finished and have had every booster and never got CoVID despite all of my family members getting it (who refused to get vaccinated).
Comment · 2 years ago
Mono was, but newer versions of .NET run on Linux and Mac.
You can install at the link below, and then making a project is just `dotnet new console` and run with `dotnet run`
Comment · 2 years ago
I go in more detail in my other comment but I would imagine this is a definition most people can't get behind.
> intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income"
I think it just crumbles under light scrutiny. People have higher income for all kinds of observable reasons that don't have to do with intelligence. I have higher income than other employees at the same level just based on where I live.
Intelligence is something that is defined by academics. Surprise surprise that it it measures how people perform in a narrow set of academic skills.
Comment · 2 years ago
"g" is a measure of narrow set of skills and job performance outcomes that favor western developed society. It's not an observable, it's an inferred value. It makes sense that people good at math and reading are going to perform well in jobs that involve math and reading. And people without access to good schooling or even textbooks are going to have worse performance.
I don't think it's appropriate to measure intelligence as a correlation between the few things a statistician cares about, personally. It would be a naively meritocratic view to think performing well at the highest paying jobs is a decent measure for intelligence.
Right, but they are visibly are. Russ Vought (project 2025) is the Office of Management and Budget director. He drafted the executive orders months ago that would lead to exactly this. Part of Project 2025
Other members in Trumps cabinet from Project 2025:
- Tom Homan (Border Czar)
- Brendan Carr (FCC)
- John Ratcliffe (CIA Director)
> The rest of your post is just hysteria so I won't comment on that.
Maybe don't accuse others of hysteria while you spout that Democrats are the ones coordinating every independent attorney and judge to come after Trump.
> In every instance, he has said he is not affiliated with it and doesn't support it
You sound like you were born yesterday. If you can't imagine why a politician would say one thing and do the other, I really can't help you. You're maliciously ignorant.