4 ms·

Actually, this is how you know: > The Times spoke with 20 people who worked at the Frito-Lay divisions responsible for new product development 32 years ago, wh

Actually, this is how you know: > The Times spoke with 20 people who worked at the Frito-Lay divisions responsible for new product development 32 years ago, when Flamin’ Hot Cheetos were first extruded into existence. None recalls anything like the episode Montañez describes taking place.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
Human memory may be unreliable after just a few seconds https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35464229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35464229 I could have sworn there was a submission with comments. I can't find it. Maybe I'm misremembering that. ¯_ (ツ)_/¯ Edit: There's also a phenomenon known as lying. I've seen underprivileged people hurt by more "reliable, upstanding" sorts taking advantage of the other's lack of credibility. Last, group think is a thing. Everyone agrees X is the truth, they all swear that's the truth.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > Human memory may be unreliable after just a few seconds Is your argument that Montañez's memory is accurate but that of everyone who was interviewed (20 people?) are not?
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    Nope. My position -- stated elsewhere -- is we can't really know for sure and it's not worth my time to try to figure it out. Multiple people have some issue with me feeling that way and feel compelled to tell me I'm wrong, it's knowable, here are the facts -- though they weren't there personally. Why so many people feel compelled to argue this with me is beyond me. But I feel entitled to not care and not agree with people insisting they know for absolute certain what happened decades ago to someone else based on reading stuff and they are right for caring and feeling absolutely certain and I'm wrong for not.
    - benzible 4y ago
      Where would you place the probabilities of: * the reporter invented 20 interviews * 20 people all completely forgot what would have been a memorable event * 20 anonymous sources conspired to lie for no apparent gain ...vs. "the guy making money off of this story is lying"? If the standard is "all things are completely unknowable unless you can eliminate every alternative, no matter how ludicrously unlikely" then we may as well not attempt to ever ascertain facts about anything.
      - DoreenMichele 4y ago
        No, that's not my standard. I have a deadly genetic disorder. I have spent more than twenty years getting better while the world spits in my face, calls me a liar, tells me I'm making things up, bans me left and right from various forums, etc. I talk less about that than I used to. Truth being on my side has been irrelevant in the face of internet strangers feeling like a former homemaker isn't allowed to know anything medically significant and I've essentially been bullied into silence on the topic. So I decided the article isn't my cup of tea. Is the token woman on the HN leaderboard not allowed to feel like "I identify too much with the minority individual people are calling a liar. It seems pointless to read this."? Apparently, commenting about this article at all was a huge mistake. The number of replies from people insisting I'm wrong to not wish to invest myself in this story seems ridiculously high.
        nescioquid 4y ago
        You are invested enough in this story to comment on it. You said that credit for your ideas was stolen and you seem to have projected your own problems onto the Montañez story. When challenged, you took refuge behind the fallibility of human memory, race, gender, and medical problems. On the other hand, you went into this thinking the world was one way and found out it was somehow different in this case (unless your take-away was just "sour grapes").
        DoreenMichele 4y ago
        you seem to have projected your own problems onto the Montañez story No, I haven't. You seem to be -- like many other people here -- determined to believe that I am "on his side" because I don't agree with your conclusions. I've stated repeatedly that the interviews were decades after the fact, I don't feel it's possible to know exactly what happened and I just know too much about how human bias influences conclusions in spite of all the evidence. Truth often has little to do with what groups of people agree is the correct narrative. That absolutely does not mean "I am totally on his side and it's the other 20 people who are liars, I'm sure of it!" I don't intend to comment further. This whole thing just seems bizarre to me.
- vlunkr 4y ago
  Sure 20 people could be lying. It's unlikely, and they have no motive really. They were paid for their work already. He's the one trying to profit from their work.

DoreenMichele 4y ago

Human memory may be unreliable after just a few seconds https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35464229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35464229 I could have sworn there was a submission with comments. I can't find it. Maybe I'm misremembering that. ¯_ (ツ)_/¯ Edit: There's also a phenomenon known as lying. I've seen underprivileged people hurt by more "reliable, upstanding" sorts taking advantage of the other's lack of credibility. Last, group think is a thing. Everyone agrees X is the truth, they all swear that's the truth.

andsoitis 4y ago
> Human memory may be unreliable after just a few seconds Is your argument that Montañez's memory is accurate but that of everyone who was interviewed (20 people?) are not?
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  Nope. My position -- stated elsewhere -- is we can't really know for sure and it's not worth my time to try to figure it out. Multiple people have some issue with me feeling that way and feel compelled to tell me I'm wrong, it's knowable, here are the facts -- though they weren't there personally. Why so many people feel compelled to argue this with me is beyond me. But I feel entitled to not care and not agree with people insisting they know for absolute certain what happened decades ago to someone else based on reading stuff and they are right for caring and feeling absolutely certain and I'm wrong for not.
  - benzible 4y ago
    Where would you place the probabilities of: * the reporter invented 20 interviews * 20 people all completely forgot what would have been a memorable event * 20 anonymous sources conspired to lie for no apparent gain ...vs. "the guy making money off of this story is lying"? If the standard is "all things are completely unknowable unless you can eliminate every alternative, no matter how ludicrously unlikely" then we may as well not attempt to ever ascertain facts about anything.
    - DoreenMichele 4y ago
      No, that's not my standard. I have a deadly genetic disorder. I have spent more than twenty years getting better while the world spits in my face, calls me a liar, tells me I'm making things up, bans me left and right from various forums, etc. I talk less about that than I used to. Truth being on my side has been irrelevant in the face of internet strangers feeling like a former homemaker isn't allowed to know anything medically significant and I've essentially been bullied into silence on the topic. So I decided the article isn't my cup of tea. Is the token woman on the HN leaderboard not allowed to feel like "I identify too much with the minority individual people are calling a liar. It seems pointless to read this."? Apparently, commenting about this article at all was a huge mistake. The number of replies from people insisting I'm wrong to not wish to invest myself in this story seems ridiculously high.
      - nescioquid 4y ago
        You are invested enough in this story to comment on it. You said that credit for your ideas was stolen and you seem to have projected your own problems onto the Montañez story. When challenged, you took refuge behind the fallibility of human memory, race, gender, and medical problems. On the other hand, you went into this thinking the world was one way and found out it was somehow different in this case (unless your take-away was just "sour grapes").
        DoreenMichele 4y ago
        you seem to have projected your own problems onto the Montañez story No, I haven't. You seem to be -- like many other people here -- determined to believe that I am "on his side" because I don't agree with your conclusions. I've stated repeatedly that the interviews were decades after the fact, I don't feel it's possible to know exactly what happened and I just know too much about how human bias influences conclusions in spite of all the evidence. Truth often has little to do with what groups of people agree is the correct narrative. That absolutely does not mean "I am totally on his side and it's the other 20 people who are liars, I'm sure of it!" I don't intend to comment further. This whole thing just seems bizarre to me.
vlunkr 4y ago
Sure 20 people could be lying. It's unlikely, and they have no motive really. They were paid for their work already. He's the one trying to profit from their work.