3 ms·

Yes, although this is expensive and harmful, there is little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner, or that we can even measure the best ou

Yes, although this is expensive and harmful, there is little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner, or that we can even measure the best outcome. Plus, for a lot of stuff - we don’t need experiments, we know what works! As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free?

throw10920 1y ago
> expensive Citation needed > harmful Citation needed > little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner What does this mean? Not a coherent sentence. > that we can even measure the best outcome So, exactly the same as when it's done at the federal level. > for a lot of stuff - we don’t need experiments, we know what works In terms of legislation? Factually incorrect. Legislation/regulation is extremely difficult to get right and it's incredibly rare that there's precedent that is universally-agreed-upon to be beneficial in general, let alone when the states don't try their hand first. > As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free? Again, what does this mean? This isn't a coherent sentence either.
- edmundsauto 1y ago
  This is just not an appropriate response, but I'm happy you feel like you made your point. You can chalk up another internet point for p0wnage of someone you'll never meet. Was it your intent to shut down a conversation?
  - throw10920 1y ago
    > This is just not an appropriate response It's entirely an appropriate response given that you made multiple factual claims without providing evidence, and you made several statements that just were incoherent and so I couldn't even understand what your points were. > I'm happy you feel like you made your point Factually, I did make my point. I made factually correct statements, and you responded with false claims and fallacies, and eventually realized that you couldn't actually refute my points and so started emotionally attacking me. That indicates that you don't understand the difference between feelings and things that are factually true. > Was it your intent to shut down a conversation? No, it was my intent to discover truth. Do you not realize that facts and truth matters and that you can't just lie about things? If you can't justify your positions with facts and logic, you're just a hypocrite and your opinions are meaningless. Also, Hacker News is specifically about intellectual curiosity. I want to know if what you're saying is true, and engage with points that you make (feelings are not points), and so I ask questions and challenge. Emotional outbursts, like yours, are the polar opposite - they're anti-intellectual, and shut down curiosity.

throw10920 1y ago

> expensive Citation needed > harmful Citation needed > little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner What does this mean? Not a coherent sentence. > that we can even measure the best outcome So, exactly the same as when it's done at the federal level. > for a lot of stuff - we don’t need experiments, we know what works In terms of legislation? Factually incorrect. Legislation/regulation is extremely difficult to get right and it's incredibly rare that there's precedent that is universally-agreed-upon to be beneficial in general, let alone when the states don't try their hand first. > As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free? Again, what does this mean? This isn't a coherent sentence either.

edmundsauto 1y ago
This is just not an appropriate response, but I'm happy you feel like you made your point. You can chalk up another internet point for p0wnage of someone you'll never meet. Was it your intent to shut down a conversation?
- throw10920 1y ago
  > This is just not an appropriate response It's entirely an appropriate response given that you made multiple factual claims without providing evidence, and you made several statements that just were incoherent and so I couldn't even understand what your points were. > I'm happy you feel like you made your point Factually, I did make my point. I made factually correct statements, and you responded with false claims and fallacies, and eventually realized that you couldn't actually refute my points and so started emotionally attacking me. That indicates that you don't understand the difference between feelings and things that are factually true. > Was it your intent to shut down a conversation? No, it was my intent to discover truth. Do you not realize that facts and truth matters and that you can't just lie about things? If you can't justify your positions with facts and logic, you're just a hypocrite and your opinions are meaningless. Also, Hacker News is specifically about intellectual curiosity. I want to know if what you're saying is true, and engage with points that you make (feelings are not points), and so I ask questions and challenge. Emotional outbursts, like yours, are the polar opposite - they're anti-intellectual, and shut down curiosity.