3 ms·

What you're saying is you don't care. You can just say that. "I don't care to look further to see if this person's work has merit." That's ok. But don't try to

by mkr-hn 14y ago

What you're saying is you don't care. You can just say that. "I don't care to look further to see if this person's work has merit." That's ok. But don't try to dress it up as some kind of cynical enlightenment.

001sky 14y ago
No, i don't care to argue with you.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  This string of posts says otherwise. I think it annoys you that I won't go along with your desired narrative. Your submission history combined with the rapid rise in karma makes me think you're the one doing thinly-veiled PR. edit: One of your first submissions is from Andrew Breitbart's site. And you're calling others partisan. Who are you working for?
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Nah. You're not adding any information or insight with your back and forth. That's what you miss. You might also be more interested in the PhD thesis I submitted on multi-touch user interfaces, adjacent. or: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4707742 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4707742 http://flowingdata.com/2009/02/25/googles-chief-economist-hal-varian-on-statistics-and-data/ http://flowingdata.com/2009/02/25/googles-chief-economist-ha... But nice try at the smear. Orthogonal Datapoint: S&P guilty of misleading investors Landmark ruling by Australian court could pave way for flood of cases against ratings agencies http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/05/standard-poors-guilty-misleading-investors http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/05/standard-poor... http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/05/business/sp-guilt-misleading-investors/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/05/business/sp-guilt-misleading-i... Dressing up ideas with statistics is not new, original, or scientific, etc. Its just an informed, iterative marketing strategy. In business or politics. The level (AAA!) and quality of the "analysis" notwithstanding.[1] _______ [1] Its worth noting the ~epistemological assymetry of ratings. They are so "objective" and "reliable" that their use is legally mandated, in the US and the EU. But the providers ratings themselves issue them as "non-expert" "public opinions". Thus, they cannot be sued if you rely on them. We'll see how far the Australian precedent goes, internationally. Until then, Caveat Emptor.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

by mkr-hn 14y ago

001sky 14y ago

No, i don't care to argue with you.

mkr-hn 14y ago
This string of posts says otherwise. I think it annoys you that I won't go along with your desired narrative. Your submission history combined with the rapid rise in karma makes me think you're the one doing thinly-veiled PR. edit: One of your first submissions is from Andrew Breitbart's site. And you're calling others partisan. Who are you working for?
- 001sky 14y ago
  Nah. You're not adding any information or insight with your back and forth. That's what you miss. You might also be more interested in the PhD thesis I submitted on multi-touch user interfaces, adjacent. or: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4707742 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4707742 http://flowingdata.com/2009/02/25/googles-chief-economist-hal-varian-on-statistics-and-data/ http://flowingdata.com/2009/02/25/googles-chief-economist-ha... But nice try at the smear. Orthogonal Datapoint: S&P guilty of misleading investors Landmark ruling by Australian court could pave way for flood of cases against ratings agencies http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/05/standard-poors-guilty-misleading-investors http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/05/standard-poor... http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/05/business/sp-guilt-misleading-investors/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/05/business/sp-guilt-misleading-i... Dressing up ideas with statistics is not new, original, or scientific, etc. Its just an informed, iterative marketing strategy. In business or politics. The level (AAA!) and quality of the "analysis" notwithstanding.[1] _______ [1] Its worth noting the ~epistemological assymetry of ratings. They are so "objective" and "reliable" that their use is legally mandated, in the US and the EU. But the providers ratings themselves issue them as "non-expert" "public opinions". Thus, they cannot be sued if you rely on them. We'll see how far the Australian precedent goes, internationally. Until then, Caveat Emptor.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]