4 ms·

If some people are more prone to sunburn than others then you shouldn't have a developers' technical conference outdoors in the summer on a tropical area. It m

If some people are more prone to sunburn than others then you shouldn't have a developers' technical conference outdoors in the summer on a tropical area. It may not be your problem or your responsibility to prevent other people's sunburns (they can buy their own sunscreen, right?) but I hope you realize that ignoring their preferences is shitty behaviour that will give you(r website) a bad reputation. And it's not like protecting your conference from sunlight will benefit only the albinos. Sunburn resistance is not the same as immunity, so everyone benefits at least a little. Same with SO, even people with thick skin will benefit at least a little from a less toxic environment.

the8472 8y ago
> even people with thick skin will benefit at least a little from a less toxic environment. That argument is not entirely solid. After all the toxic environment is also the same environment that provides those answers. So if those two were positively correlated then decreasing toxicity could also drive down the answer quality. A cartoony scenario would be a stack overflow where everyone is busy assuring everyone else that their questions are good, non-stupid questions and they should be praised for asking them and wasting a lot of time on those instead of answering questions. Of course we're unlikely to be at a global optimum here, so things can certainly be improved. You should just be more careful about analyzing those tradeoffs.
manigandham 8y ago
> they can buy their own sunscreen, right? Yes, obviously. Personal responsibility instead of blaming others. In your scenario, some might like to be outside so how are you including them? That's the fallacy with trying to make everyone happy; it's impossible. Anyways, that also was weird stretch of the analogy as it's the same as saying SO shouldn't allow any communication because some people may feel sad. This thread is about people feeling that a comment was based on something when the reality is that they don't know. And because they don't know, saying it as fact doesn't make it so, hence we should not suddenly say that they are targeted just because they feel that they are targeted, even if they have a propensity to feel targeted more than others. Your feelings are your concern.

the8472 8y ago

> even people with thick skin will benefit at least a little from a less toxic environment. That argument is not entirely solid. After all the toxic environment is also the same environment that provides those answers. So if those two were positively correlated then decreasing toxicity could also drive down the answer quality. A cartoony scenario would be a stack overflow where everyone is busy assuring everyone else that their questions are good, non-stupid questions and they should be praised for asking them and wasting a lot of time on those instead of answering questions. Of course we're unlikely to be at a global optimum here, so things can certainly be improved. You should just be more careful about analyzing those tradeoffs.

manigandham 8y ago

> they can buy their own sunscreen, right? Yes, obviously. Personal responsibility instead of blaming others. In your scenario, some might like to be outside so how are you including them? That's the fallacy with trying to make everyone happy; it's impossible. Anyways, that also was weird stretch of the analogy as it's the same as saying SO shouldn't allow any communication because some people may feel sad. This thread is about people feeling that a comment was based on something when the reality is that they don't know. And because they don't know, saying it as fact doesn't make it so, hence we should not suddenly say that they are targeted just because they feel that they are targeted, even if they have a propensity to feel targeted more than others. Your feelings are your concern.