8 ms·

Your post is endemic of something I see a lot on HN. You know nothing about agriculture, but you see a minor set of stories and you think you're a fucking expe

by jhcoaps 14y ago

Your post is endemic of something I see a lot on HN. You know nothing about agriculture, but you see a minor set of stories and you think you're a fucking expert. You have no idea if the diversified strategy has a higher expected value, or if it's just a variance play based on heat, or if different weather conditions could've affected interplay in a different way. You have no idea what the crop insurances for different crops cost. You have no idea what the weather forecasts were. You literally know absolutely nothing about the matter. All you know is that you've got an ideology and that you see absolutely everything through the ideas of your ideology, selectively perceiving, remembering and interpreting events to confirm and reconfirm your ideology. And you're sufficiently arrogant that you think you can glance at a farm and know what tradeoffs they considered when they were planting their fields. And that doesn't even get into the fact that if you travel via air around the globe, nearly all of the airlines are absolutely terrible, not just the subsidized ones in the US. Thus, it's fairly clear that while you'd like to pretend that your religion explains everything, it really doesn't.

stonemetal 14y ago
Your post is endemic of something I see a lot on HN. You know nothing about agriculture, but you see a minor set of stories and you think you're a fucking expert. What is with the create a throwaway account to insult people thing? Karma isn't worth anything why not burn it under your real username?
- Useful_Idiot 14y ago
  HN has the same issue as Reddit: accounts tend to get Hell-banned / Voted into obscurity for merely voicing alternative thought processes / not conforming to the 'logical-identity' construct that HN is comfortable with. Proof? This account is hell-banned, or at least it was.
- calinet6 14y ago
  Frankly, HN is a better place if people value their accounts and their reputation. This is a Good Thing.
  - tokenizer 14y ago
    Some people value being able to mask their account to voice their true opinion. It doesn't mean he's creating an account to troll necessarily, but to conceal his more reputable account from things we all know if possible; abuse. Something your parent doesn't seem to respect. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
  - incision 14y ago
    I've been struggling and failing for a minute here for a way sum this up. It's likely impossible as it's far from a simple topic. Anyway, I tend to disagree. Reputation can do plenty to make a place worse - squashing dissenting opinions, incentivizing "gaming" of the system. I do my best to ignore these systems entirely.
    - calinet6 14y ago
      Ironically this may increase your reputation, as honesty and genuineness are extremely valued traits. Most corporations fail to realize this.
  - stonemetal 14y ago
    HN is a better place if people value their accounts and their reputation. This is a Good Thing. Only if it makes them valuable members of the community. If patio11(just as an example no offense) logged out of patio11 and logged in as a string of throw away accounts, then him valuing his account hurts the community. It incorrectly values the patio11 persona. It improves engagement of someone who is actively trolling. It actively encourages others to engage in such behavior.
- jhcoaps 14y ago
  Sometimes it's best to let the argument stand on it's own merit, not on your name. --Publius. Also, Karma doesn't matter, but sentiments that can be perceived as being anti-libertarian often result in Hell-Banning on this site, which is vaguely annoying.
dmix 14y ago
> if you travel via air around the globe, nearly all of the airlines are absolutely terrible, not just the subsidized ones in the US. And where are your sources and analysis to back this up? The original commenter at least linked to a few interesting articles to support his argument.
kalleboo 14y ago
> And that doesn't even get into the fact that if you travel via air around the globe, nearly all of the airlines are absolutely terrible, not just the subsidized ones in the US. Where does this come from? I find that most airlines around the world are absolutely brilliant.
lusr 14y ago
Your post is endemic of something I see a lot of on the Internet. You hide behind an account you just made, aggressively, lengthily and rudely responding to somebody who actually desired to contribute to the discussion without contributing much of anything yourself, without seeing the irony in any of this.
- imgabe 14y ago
  Actually I found it to be a pretty compelling and well reasoned indictment of grandparent's utter failure to consider the many complex factors that can lead to the necessity of subsidizing certain industries.
  - incision 14y ago
    Not really. The criticisms could be absolutely correct, but the response doesn't "reason" anything. The response doesn't actually demonstrate that the parent is incorrect or propose a complete alternative. It simply states that it is wrong without a shred of evidence or exposition, only vague phrases suggesting omissions. That's not an indictment, just a wordy insult. --- I get the frustration with what appears to be shallow understanding of something turned into a sweeping judgement, but at least it's attempting something constructive. The response is pure aggressive arrogance.
    - imgabe 14y ago
      The response points out several specific considerations that OP failed to take into account. Based on these it is not unreasonable to conclude that OP was making broad judgement about a field he had little knowledge of based on one news report. Making a broad generalization may represent an attempt to be constructive, but when that attempt is based on a number of faulty assumptions, I think that pointing out what those assumptions are and why they are faulty is equally as constructive, if not more so. The implicit assumption in OPs comparison is that the farmer who grew hay is a Bad Farmer and the farmer who grew sorghum is a Good Farmer, and so the Bad Farmer should give up farming or at least apprentice himself to the Good Farmer, so he can learn how to grow sorghum instead of hay. Never mind that the farmer growing hay no doubt took into consideration many, many factors that the OP clearly knows nothing about, and that a crop failure based on an unexpected drought could happen to anyone give that there is currently no way to predict what the weather will be several months from now.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by jhcoaps 14y ago

stonemetal 14y ago

Your post is endemic of something I see a lot on HN. You know nothing about agriculture, but you see a minor set of stories and you think you're a fucking expert. What is with the create a throwaway account to insult people thing? Karma isn't worth anything why not burn it under your real username?

Useful_Idiot 14y ago
HN has the same issue as Reddit: accounts tend to get Hell-banned / Voted into obscurity for merely voicing alternative thought processes / not conforming to the 'logical-identity' construct that HN is comfortable with. Proof? This account is hell-banned, or at least it was.
calinet6 14y ago
Frankly, HN is a better place if people value their accounts and their reputation. This is a Good Thing.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  Some people value being able to mask their account to voice their true opinion. It doesn't mean he's creating an account to troll necessarily, but to conceal his more reputable account from things we all know if possible; abuse. Something your parent doesn't seem to respect. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
- incision 14y ago
  I've been struggling and failing for a minute here for a way sum this up. It's likely impossible as it's far from a simple topic. Anyway, I tend to disagree. Reputation can do plenty to make a place worse - squashing dissenting opinions, incentivizing "gaming" of the system. I do my best to ignore these systems entirely.
  - calinet6 14y ago
    Ironically this may increase your reputation, as honesty and genuineness are extremely valued traits. Most corporations fail to realize this.
- stonemetal 14y ago
  HN is a better place if people value their accounts and their reputation. This is a Good Thing. Only if it makes them valuable members of the community. If patio11(just as an example no offense) logged out of patio11 and logged in as a string of throw away accounts, then him valuing his account hurts the community. It incorrectly values the patio11 persona. It improves engagement of someone who is actively trolling. It actively encourages others to engage in such behavior.
jhcoaps 14y ago
Sometimes it's best to let the argument stand on it's own merit, not on your name. --Publius. Also, Karma doesn't matter, but sentiments that can be perceived as being anti-libertarian often result in Hell-Banning on this site, which is vaguely annoying.

dmix 14y ago

> if you travel via air around the globe, nearly all of the airlines are absolutely terrible, not just the subsidized ones in the US. And where are your sources and analysis to back this up? The original commenter at least linked to a few interesting articles to support his argument.

kalleboo 14y ago

> And that doesn't even get into the fact that if you travel via air around the globe, nearly all of the airlines are absolutely terrible, not just the subsidized ones in the US. Where does this come from? I find that most airlines around the world are absolutely brilliant.

lusr 14y ago

Your post is endemic of something I see a lot of on the Internet. You hide behind an account you just made, aggressively, lengthily and rudely responding to somebody who actually desired to contribute to the discussion without contributing much of anything yourself, without seeing the irony in any of this.

imgabe 14y ago
Actually I found it to be a pretty compelling and well reasoned indictment of grandparent's utter failure to consider the many complex factors that can lead to the necessity of subsidizing certain industries.
- incision 14y ago
  Not really. The criticisms could be absolutely correct, but the response doesn't "reason" anything. The response doesn't actually demonstrate that the parent is incorrect or propose a complete alternative. It simply states that it is wrong without a shred of evidence or exposition, only vague phrases suggesting omissions. That's not an indictment, just a wordy insult. --- I get the frustration with what appears to be shallow understanding of something turned into a sweeping judgement, but at least it's attempting something constructive. The response is pure aggressive arrogance.
  - imgabe 14y ago
    The response points out several specific considerations that OP failed to take into account. Based on these it is not unreasonable to conclude that OP was making broad judgement about a field he had little knowledge of based on one news report. Making a broad generalization may represent an attempt to be constructive, but when that attempt is based on a number of faulty assumptions, I think that pointing out what those assumptions are and why they are faulty is equally as constructive, if not more so. The implicit assumption in OPs comparison is that the farmer who grew hay is a Bad Farmer and the farmer who grew sorghum is a Good Farmer, and so the Bad Farmer should give up farming or at least apprentice himself to the Good Farmer, so he can learn how to grow sorghum instead of hay. Never mind that the farmer growing hay no doubt took into consideration many, many factors that the OP clearly knows nothing about, and that a crop failure based on an unexpected drought could happen to anyone give that there is currently no way to predict what the weather will be several months from now.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]