4 ms·

> While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. Really? What other use cases are there for a military? > It is based on multitudes of studies in psycholo

by pdonis 3y ago

> While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. Really? What other use cases are there for a military? > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know. As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.

scrum-treats 3y ago
[flagged]
- pdonis 3y ago
  We evidently don't have enough common ground to have a useful discussion. You are making huge, sweeping statements based on nothing. I see no point in further engagement with you.
  - scrum-treats 3y ago
    Do let me know if you want to engage with some scientific research, and/or declassified docs that describe exactly what I'm saying. Happy to share, because science and scientific method.
  - dang 3y ago
    Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's tedious and not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 3y ago
  You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.
  - scrum-treats 3y ago
    > You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models. > We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, which is of questionable moderation. Not just on this comment thread but many others. I don't see these warnings anywhere. Again, this points to subjectivity. I searched for subjectivity in moderation on the link you provided and it returned no results. Please can you also share the algorithms used in moderation for HN? Thanks very much!
    - dang 3y ago
      The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't. If you'll review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html with a sincere intent to use this site as intended, it should be easy to see how you weren't doing that. Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). That's a universal bias, same as it always feels like the cops are singling you out for a speeding ticket when lots of other cars were going fast too. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation not that we're against you—it's simply that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
brightlancer 3y ago
> > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. > In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience". Unless someone here was with you, they don't know (nor do I) what your personal experience was. Similarly, you don't know everyone else's personal experiences. OTOH, we have these wonderful social sciences which go around and collect data from lots and lots of individuals, draw conclusions and publish them for other people to read and learn. The data and conclusions might not be representative of your experience, but it's rubbish for you to handwave it away for your individual, subjective experience.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience". It's not ironic at all. Leadership itself is something that can't be studied purely from the outside. > we have these wonderful social sciences I don't share your rosy view of these so-called sciences. But that's not something we're going to resolve here.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by pdonis 3y ago

scrum-treats 3y ago

[flagged]

pdonis 3y ago
We evidently don't have enough common ground to have a useful discussion. You are making huge, sweeping statements based on nothing. I see no point in further engagement with you.
- scrum-treats 3y ago
  Do let me know if you want to engage with some scientific research, and/or declassified docs that describe exactly what I'm saying. Happy to share, because science and scientific method.
- dang 3y ago
  Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's tedious and not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 3y ago
You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.
- scrum-treats 3y ago
  > You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models. > We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, which is of questionable moderation. Not just on this comment thread but many others. I don't see these warnings anywhere. Again, this points to subjectivity. I searched for subjectivity in moderation on the link you provided and it returned no results. Please can you also share the algorithms used in moderation for HN? Thanks very much!
  - dang 3y ago
    The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't. If you'll review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html with a sincere intent to use this site as intended, it should be easy to see how you weren't doing that. Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). That's a universal bias, same as it always feels like the cops are singling you out for a speeding ticket when lots of other cars were going fast too. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation not that we're against you—it's simply that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

brightlancer 3y ago

> > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. > In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience". Unless someone here was with you, they don't know (nor do I) what your personal experience was. Similarly, you don't know everyone else's personal experiences. OTOH, we have these wonderful social sciences which go around and collect data from lots and lots of individuals, draw conclusions and publish them for other people to read and learn. The data and conclusions might not be representative of your experience, but it's rubbish for you to handwave it away for your individual, subjective experience.

pdonis 3y ago
> It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience". It's not ironic at all. Leadership itself is something that can't be studied purely from the outside. > we have these wonderful social sciences I don't share your rosy view of these so-called sciences. But that's not something we're going to resolve here.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]