Helianthus

45 ms·

451.
by Helianthus 15y ago
Bit of a loaded question, isn't it? Consider that "hacker attacks" nominally includes fucking up power plants and other infrastructure (targeting civilian hospitals)--a country-sponsored malicious cyber assault. Obviously that would be cons
452.
by Helianthus 15y ago
No no no no no. A thousand times no. First of all, the monkeysphere does not work this way. The old cracked article (linked elsewhere but also provided here[1]) is sanctimonious overstatement. Not all friends are equal. We don't live in
453.
by Helianthus 15y ago
this statement is exactly the attitude described by romaniv.
454.
Ask HN: Just what, precisely/technically, does the green name mean?
2 points by Helianthus 15y ago|2 comments
455.
by Helianthus 15y ago
Well, yeah. No one knows what they're doing. They only have the appearance by doing the sensible thing and doing the best they can. The result is that in reality a lot of people know what they're doing; but they're still resting on that ca
456.
by Helianthus 15y ago
>You know what's funny? I think this is exactly what the author would call a "stupid" remark - it's meant to say something nasty about the person you're replying to, and you don't even gain from it! Or it's meant to point out something
457.
by Helianthus 15y ago
Hell, I'd put facebook ahead of telco. Telcos have the bureaucracy that begets incompetence and therefore inaction; facebook ranks whose profiles I visit most so it can optimize my search results and minifeeds.
458.
by Helianthus 15y ago
I read your response as "I disagree with you, so your 'tone' is unacceptable." I'm glad someone is pointing out how polarizing this topic is. I'm glad someone is pointing out that people are shouting each other. People speculate and they o
459.
by Helianthus 15y ago
>Isn’t that the same? No. You can't incentivize a country not to spy because that implies some control, some carrot. Making it "hard as hell" is treating the contest with the adversarial framework it deserves, taking for granted that
460.
by Helianthus 15y ago
You know, I completely agree with you in spirit because a lot of the advice was pretty good. But I rebel at the echo I hear of "You have to learn the rules before you can break them." If you're only doing something so that you can defy it
461.
by Helianthus 15y ago
My only point is that the labeling of "cognitive dissonance" does _not_ an argument make. The points both you and SkyMarshall make are great arguments--but they should be addressed to yesbabyyes, not to me. And they should be made in _plac
462.
by Helianthus 15y ago
the thing about Eliezer's rather snide take on cognitive dissonance is it doesn't really address the issue at hand. people dying does clear out old ideas. the leopard doesn't change his shorts. or at the very _least_ you could make an argu
463.
by Helianthus 15y ago
A well put argument to establish a local subjectivity for practical effect. The problem I have with it is that it is then used to marginalize _other_ local subjectivities like r/mensrights (which admittedly has its share of ludicrous opinio
464.
by Helianthus 15y ago
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think there is an impulse to label things sexist without addressing it, so I'm gonna ask a few questions. If a woman wrote this about men, would it be sexist? (I expect you'll say yes.) If a lesbia
465.
by Helianthus 16y ago
I feel like I rage on titles all too often, but I can't resist this one, particularly since this one comes from businessweek which is currently putting a grotesque pop-up to win 1000$ for a survey in my face. There's nothing _improbable_ ab
466.
by Helianthus 16y ago
Bit of a misleading headline. The article suggests that we are less skeptical of people we already agree with and in particular of people in positions of perceived authority.