3 ms·
To be clear: I upvoted the post for the rest of the content, and I actually agree with sentiment, but I believe a large number of readers would have a gut react
by helen___keller 5y ago
To be clear: I upvoted the post for the rest of the content, and I actually agree with sentiment, but I believe a large number of readers would have a gut reaction to immediately downvote when using that sort of inflammatory phrasing. That's the reason HN guidelines say to eschew flamebait: when you use dismissive or charged language, it incites an emotional reaction that is not related to the content of the post, which often results in mass downvoting or derailed discussions
- MrRadar 5y agoI can agree with that.
- mitchellst 5y agoWhat I probably should have said: "maybe it will be fine, resolving itself with more clean energy and more electric grid capacity in mining-heavy areas, or more clever crypto tech. Or maybe we have a persistent incentives problem where the group that reaps the benefit (Silicon Valley inventors, Wall Street speculators) are distinct from the groups that bear the costs (including people near the welfare line in mining-heavy areas). A persistent incentive problem that isn't solved in relatively short order by general material abundance would be a case for regulation. ... better?