vyhd

I wouldn't call it "obvious" that someone would accept another's opinion without any info to back it up and then extol it, though it's very interesting to me that you did.

I'm sure you would, but at least do us the decency of bringing data and leaving hyperbole out.

This is a wildly incendiary ideological rant and it has no place on HN.

What data did your friend use to come to that conclusion? Would you be willing to share so we can come to our own conclusions based on the evidence presented?

That's what a free market is, yes.

edit: or would you prefer "that's what a free market does"? Either way, this is a remarkably incendiary, and frankly absurd, attempt to recast voting with one's wallet as "dictatorship".

HN, in the general case, values civility over decency when the two conflict.

I regard it as a fundamental flaw; your mileage may vary.

Citation please.

I am deeply ambivalent about my tenure at Amazon overall, but I unconditionally applaud the level of psychological safety in their dev culture: there is a shared understanding that any system failure caused by a single person is necessarily a failure of the process that governs changes to that system.

If there were any singular behavior I wish every tech company would adopt, it is that level of perspective on what makes a system reliable.

There really isn't a discussion to be had, unless you seriously want to try the claim that "shallow" and "substance-free" don't have substantial overlap.

Just accept that your comment did not live up to the guidelines set by this site, and try to learn from that.

They're referencing the site guidelines, so this statement is demonstrably false.

Normative statements are based on one's observations and interpretations of facts, and that basis can be meaningfully scrutinized.

> "But they're really really actually super-duper truly totally bad!" isn't a valid argument, since many, many people can use it and they will.

It is absurdity to make the claim that, since anyone can say anything, no meaningful concept of objectivity can exist. Interesting how often it recurs in "free speech at any cost" argumentation.

No, they got it right the first time. "Everything is political" is a reminder that we do not exist in a cultural vacuum. More pointedly, the simple act of existing in a space as a minority invites what you'd call "politics".

If your existence has never felt "political" to you, cherish that. I've been on the receiving end of many slurs and the occasional attempted assault, and I've watched politicians and pundits debate on cable TV whether I deserve to have the same rights afforded anyone else. I didn't choose to exist "politically", but I sure do notice when folks don't speak up against challenges to my existence because they view it as "politics" and therefore not worth their attention.