carbadtraingood

First side (actually): "The term 'biological female' reflects a high school level understanding of DNA and genetics. Unfortunately, real genetics is much more complex, and many women who were born and lived their entire lives as women would be flagged by systems to detect so called 'biological women'. Your use of the term is ill defined and unscientific, and any attempt to enforce it is going to hurt both trans and cis women."

> attempting to be neutral is the same as joining the Philistines.

This is a super common attitude across all areas of politics, that somehow being neutral is admirable or positive. That it implies an absence of partisanism, and is therefore preferable.

That's fine when you are talking about, say, which coffee chain you like. But in today's politics, the issues being discussed are fundamental human rights for various groups. Being neutral when there is a massive power disparity empowers those who hold the majority.

HN was never anything different than Reddit. The illusion that it is comes from people leaving Reddit looking for another online community that lines up with their interests, landing here, and saying, "ah, this place is my refuge from Reddit."

But fundamentally the established community is just as online, just as self protective, just as memey as any subreddit on a specialized topic.

One side: "We should acknowledge trans people and let them live their lives"

Other side: "We should arrest or do violence to trans people, because they are abominations, groomers, and freaks"

You: "You both make good points, who could say? The right answer is probably between 'persecute' and 'not persecute'. I am enlightened."

HN has always been a libertarian hell site with pockets of interesting people. The comments section has always had bad takes and good takes, it's always had jokes and memes.

It hasn't really changed over the past 5 years much, in my experience.

Edit: Hell site is a term of endearment. This place is the orange hell site, Twitter is the blue hell site.

He's responsible for a gross oversight in safety that led to an injured child. There were obvious and simple safety precautions that were missed.

This wasn't just, "whoops", this was fairly gross negligence.

Oh, that settles it. Robot cannot do things that are outside of the rules of chess.

Kid should have known better than to open with the classic, "break my finger" opening from the regulation standard rules.

Industrial robotics are incredibly dangerous. They operate without concern for anything in their path. Robotic arms like this can be lethal, and the idea that the robot wouldn't ever do anything unusual is, quite frankly, laughable naive.

Yes, I'm going to make the outrageous claim here: children should not be expected to work next to industrial machinery with inadequate safeguards.

I know this is controversial to some, such as userbinator, who believe that industrial robotics without safeguards are just fine to mix with children.

I disagree, if they are running the event, they are responsible for ensuring the safety of participants. You go skydiving and the chute fails in a totally predictable way, the company who takes you up shouldn't just shrug and say, "well, we aren't responsible for the chute, that was provided by another company"

Is it? Is the culture of Paris fairly homogenous? New York? London? Berlin?

I would imagine the place has some shared cultural understandings, generally, but that a big city is going to be much more heterogenous. But maybe I'm thinking too micro scale.

Dude, children get antsy sometimes. They literally have different brain development than adults do. They do not have the same controls and inhibitions.

Children are literally wired for physical experimentation and echopraxia.

Kids also want to be seen as helping. If this robot put a piece down poorly, the kid might be trying to straighten up after it.

All of which are eminently reasonable for a kid who has no concept of operating around dangerous machinery.

To be clear, any answer short of, "this was a failure on our part to protect the children who attended, and as the leader of the organization, responsibility falls on me. We will make this right for the family and I will tender my resignation" is not adequate.

Because the thesis is that automoderation is a problem. The entire point of the article is using Twitter as an example of a problem, not the root problem itself.

Good.