mutant_glofish

I don't know, I can't even provide a sample larger than one for that. But I think the rate-limiting thing should be due to something being triggered recently. It's not just a fixed rate limit, like the one you get when you submit too many articles in a short amount of time (which says something like "please don't post so many things that you dominate the new submissions page").

Also, ideological or not, restricting a user's privileges (in my case downvoting, flagging, vouching, probably upvoting and even submitting things) without telling them what the restrictions are, why they are being applied, and a straightforward process to appeal the decision isn't very friendly.

I even had trouble with rate-limiting when posting this very comment. It really seems that you think that I "obviously" should have self-censored [1] if I wanted to continue posting to HN. I don't plan on doing that. There is some value in standing for the good, the true, and the beautiful.

That would be our farewell, I guess. So long, and thanks for all the fish :-)

I'm not finger-pointing to the other side. I'm not saying that they are doing anything wrong by posting ideological things. I am accusing you of political bias.

> The other was posting exclusively about environmental issues and I've asked them to stop, but actually they weren't being particularly ideological-battle or flamewarrish about it, so even they didn't really deserve to be mentioned in this context.

Your biases show themselves even here. A particular form of environmental activism isn't ideological? Of course it is.

And of course, you totally ignored the "christofascists" vs "blight on the society" thing.

> So much for your 'data'.

My "data" is something I just typed up in a short amount of time while being angry after knowing that you are probably going to ban my account (and you had already applied a lot of restrictions before that, with no warnings or explanations). I could spend some time and give you real data, but would it matter? You've already decided that you don't care.

> I'd never claim that HN's moderation is free of bias (how would I know)?

Of course you could know, if you cared. You obviously can try to measure these things.

> It's odd for you to argue systemic bias by digging up lists (weak as they are) of who gets moderated more. Suppose group X breaks the rules more often—obviously more Xs will get moderated. That's evidence of non-bias as much as anything else. Or to put it in terms you'll surely recognize: maybe more of them are in jail because they commit more crimes.

But that's not what I tried to do. I tried to do a comparison. I pointed out that there are left-wing accounts posting a lot of ideological stuff (or outright epithets like "christofascist", "insurrectionist", "racist", "sexist", etc.) and you don't seem to care. While you either ban or give a warning to the right-wingers doing a similar thing.

> The truth is that you've been ideologically trolling HN,

What trolling? That's you biases showing up again. People sometimes do genuinely have beliefs that you may find "outrageous".

> Blame is always on others, never on self, and there's only reason to read the rules: to bash the other side for breaking them more. How about sincerely trying to follow the rules in the first place, one might wonder?

Yet again, I must emphasize that I'm not doing that. I am not accusing the other side of breaking the "rule" more than I do. I explicitly said that in a previous comment that I don't even think they should be banned. [1] I saying that HN's moderation is politically biased, and I don't appreciate that.

> Oh no no, we'd never do that—they're rigged against us so it's unthinkable.

What is the "rule"? That you should pretend that you don't have an ideology when posting to HN? Especially so if you are a right-winger, because HN's political demography is similar to California, and we get outraged more by hearing right-wing things?

> you all resemble your enemies at the opposite pole far more than you resemble anybody else

That's like Reddit-level "horseshoe theory" [2], and very far from the truth.

*request, there was only a single request.

Also, you had already applied a whole lot of restrictions to my account before the "request", without any warnings or explanations.

So, who cares? I'm not playing on a level playing field. You are definitely politically biased, in the sense that you don't apply your rules consistently. And you don't seem to care about that.

Also, you guys definitely use dishonest moderation techniques, which you don't like to call "shadow-banning". But the issue isn't what we should call it, it's the dishonesty.

And if the ban was really because you thought I am not contributing to the community (and just using it as tool for "ideological battle), then why one of my submissions is on the front-page at this very moment? [1]

With the recent SCOTUS ruling, things have changed a little bit. Unfortunately, that really doesn't prevent people from finding ways to get around the ruling. [2]

> Pickering’s successor as director, Harlow Shapley, jokingly quantified the work in terms of the number of ‘kilo-girl hours’ it would take

Pickering himself was teased for having a "harem".

What is true is that there were a lot of human computers, and most of them were girls. I think Feynman, as you would expect from him, played a role in organizing some computer girls for the Manhattan project [2]:

> So we set up this room with girls in it. Each one had a Marchant. But she was the multiplier, and she was the adder, and this one cubed, and we had index cards, and all she did was cube this number and send it to the next one.

> We went through our cycle this way until we got all the bugs out. Well, it turned out that the speed at which we were able to do it was a hell of a lot faster than the other way, where every single person did all the steps. We got speed with this system that was the predicted speed for the IBM machine. The only difference is that the IBM machines didn't get tired and could work three shifts. But the girls got tired after a while.