nick_riviera

This has plenty to do with the article, you know if you read both.

Popped up to explain myself. It appears that certain themes on HN attract down votes rapidly. Such as:

1. Criticising Apple's policy on repairability.

2. Suggesting that drugs are bad for you.

Two pretty pragmatic things on which I have a lot of experience of as a) an electrical engineer who did a lot of work with power conversion, charging and energy efficiency and b) someone who is married to a mental health nurse. Well when you attract a -4 instantly for both comments that suggests that there is a group opinion on HN. Rather than discuss the matter sensibly like adults, the prevailing approach is to quickly down vote a post so it is seen as irrelevant and to push the group think. Perhaps a worse thing to down vote is someone who asks for proof of an argument past an anecdote i.e. "shit or get off the pot".

This is as damn near religion as anything else and is not what I expect from a news site which is primarily technical. I expect a degree of intelligence.

Now this is an experiment for me as well because I have another account with the ability to down vote and over 2000 points against it. NEVER have I down voted a single post as I don't feel that is appropriate. Unfortunately it appears that anyone with a green label is treated as unfortunate fodder and easy money for the entrenched elite, the agenda-ists or the company shills (Google, Apple for example which are hard to say something bad about here without attracting down votes).

To solve this, I would rather that the down vote link is removed from HN and that if anyone finds content objectionable then they should flag it rather than spank it to oblivion.

I understand this forum has extreme moderation and dubious policies regarding such things but there is no excuse to be a pit of elitist assholes of the technical community. That is currently the only badge that HN can wear.

I expect better and I'm sure the majority of people do as well.

Reddit has a better moderation policy, a more rational and open minded user base and arguably better technical content in some subreddits. That's saying something.

I bet this gets down voted or flagged.

Thanks for a constructive and well thought out reply.

One question to bear in mind when doing this sort of thing: just because it works in SPICE doesn't mean it's going to work as intended when you build it. SPICE is very ideal world. That may or may not invalidate this approach.

Source: several years of arguing with SPICE in a professional capacity.

Fair points.

Regarding your latter points, I assume you have never talked to NHS mental health staff who have to deal with addicts on a regular basis? Not a pretty job and actually puts you right in there to see the effects in action.

I fear no one, but "freedom" should always encompass the ethic of reciprocity.

That point is what's missing from all discussions on the subject otherwise it is just self-interest.

Doesn't that depend on how far my neighbour is away? Perhaps we have 500m long gardens...

The analogy is valid as is "pissing over my fence onto my head", "kicking a football through my greenhouse", "catapulting dog shit into my garden" etc etc.

Isn't prevention better than cure?

People keep saying "prohibition didn't work" but I'm hard pressed to find a conclusive paper on the subject. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Edit: Ask for proof/sources = down vote. Hey everyone, fuck science.

I purposely avoided explaining it to demonstrate a point: the average user doesn't know this or understand it. They understand the outcome only.

Sorry, you are 100% correct with the SSID vs MAC. If I'm in my car with the handset externally powered, does it use course location or does it use all three sources because on KitKat on my Moto G, it gives me the option to use all three at cost of battery life?

I disagree with your assessment of the location ability. It's definitely better than you explain it. I can go through at least 100 previous data points in my history and it's spot on each time.

Very much so. Isn't public health about reducing avoidable risks and keeping the population healthy?

1. Yes I do think that it should be made illegal on the basis that it causes a number of deep social problems in the UK. If you've ever seen an English town after closing time, you'll know what I mean.

2. I completely agree with you but do you think that legalising it is going to reduce the health impact? No, it's going to make it socially acceptable.

Shit or get off the pot: Cite your sources regarding addiction.

Edit: Ask for proof/sources = down vote. Hey everyone, fuck science.

You are quite clearly an absolute dire example of a complete fucking moron if you think that smoking weed doesn't affect your driving.

It affects your judgement, your motor skills, slows your reaction time and so can the withdrawal symptoms.

I'm not even going to link a page because it's that easy to find supporting information that is credible.

Actually I'm half German and half English so that's a bit of a hard one to answer isn't it?

Do I support Europe or do I avoid getting my family killed by the German authorities for refusing to fight the other half?

War is ugly. Everyone refusing to fight is the only answer.

Well I'll add one more:

The physical and mental health problems and associated healthcare burden.

This is not insignificant and totally shrugged off by the "pro-legalisation" side of things.

Yes I know this is idealist. I'd like people to act responsibly and consider others but to be honest this is beyond a not insignificant proportion of the population. I live in the UK. This class of drug is banned and it should stay so. The police don't go around locking people up - they do slap wrists and that keeps it under control.

When it gets too much or puts people in danger, through drug driving or mindless paranoia caused violence, they have the power to say "stop - that's enough" and solve the problem there and then through the courts. If legalised, that power diminishes into a non-absolute method of control.

We have laws against drinking and smoking in certain places as well already and things have improved massively since these were introduced.

The deep problem we all know, and this is written in many a paper freely googlable, is that smoking, alcohol and drug consumption have observable and statistically obvious negative health effects and negative effects on society. In the UK, this means healthcare budget being sucked up.

Let's use an analogy:

What if someone was burning a tyre in my neighbour's garden directly affecting my health?