ardy42

9 ms·

31.
by ardy42 6y ago
>> One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. >> The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. > I know this is usually how americ
32.
by ardy42 6y ago
> For example, Google can figure out if you are a bot with its "I'm not a robot" checkbox. This means that they can probably also figure out that fake automated requests are indeed fake. Not necessarily. Given a noise scr
33.
by ardy42 6y ago
> But for what? Most heirloom hardbacks are better-than-average novels for well-heeled fans and collectors, not a complete guide to rebuilding civilisation. They're not a guide for rebuilding civilization. They're something th
34.
by ardy42 6y ago
> That said, Tesla's Bitcoin purchase does make a lot of sense. Elon Musk went on Twitter and called Bitcoin "BS" to drive the price down so they could buy at a discount. They then announced their Bitcoin purchase with fan
35.
by ardy42 6y ago
> The problem is their opinion often aren't actually based on first principles. Humans have a strong tendency to form an opinion for various emotional and social reasons, and then build up a set of justifications ex post facto, ofte
36.
by ardy42 6y ago
> The most troubling part of the NYT article is a glimpse into how hostile some tech folks are towards the idea of journalism: I thought this article was pretty insightful on that topic: https://mynewbandis.substack.com/
37.
by ardy42 6y ago
> I think it's quite interesting that the NYT hasn't linked Scott's response [1] in their article about him. Surely if their article was written in good faith they would be happy to do so Good faith doesn't mean doing
38.
by ardy42 6y ago
> More importantly, I am guessing you don’t have any model that predictively associates whether you like person’s writing at a particular instance in time with their efficacy as a therapist. I don't but you're moving the goalpo
39.
by ardy42 6y ago
> I thought so too. But it's hard not to notice that this article was supposedly in the work for many months, yet reads as if it took a day's worth of work (being generous). Why did it disappear for months and then come out sho
40.
by ardy42 6y ago
> What’s obvious is that 10, and 2 are not something you know in advance. They don't have to be. The principle holds generally, as long as there's some choice out there you'd like.
41.
by ardy42 6y ago
> Because they want him to stop writing. Scott Alexander believes in open debate on any issue and to any participant. The NYT believes that "open" debate should only occur within limits, and that they are entitled to set these
42.
by ardy42 6y ago
> How will this help them make a choice if they don’t also have access to the writings of other therapists they might consider? Isn't it obvious? To put it in mathy terms: if I have to choose from ten things, and I dislike 2. my ch
43.
by ardy42 6y ago
> Good point. I look forward to a time where newspapers stop using anonymous sources and publish their names to let people decide on their credibility. Boy, is that a false equivalency. You do realize that anonymizing a source is part o
44.
by ardy42 6y ago
> As you quote this particular as a supporting reference, would you be able to share some of Gab's specific timeline content that made that comment writer think that? You might want to ask them.
45.
by ardy42 6y ago
> The Sinking of the USS Maine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%8... > That's over 100 years ago. We can stop pretending that the media has ever been some selfless arbiter of truth
46.
by ardy42 6y ago
> My understanding was that the “first wave”, so to speak, of Gab users were the hardcore folks who genuinely had extremist views. > Free Speech and censorship resistant platforms tend to attract users in waves. The first wave is the
47.
by ardy42 6y ago
> But to me, free speech means anyone can speak their mind, no matter how ghastly others find it. > And on Gab, I have encountered some pretty unsavoury speech - however, copious use of the Block feature on those I find especially dis
48.
by ardy42 6y ago
>> It is not about the appeal, it is about contempt towards Twitter. Also Gab is a bit hard to approach for Parler crowd > Why is that? IIRC, it's even more extreme (e.g. full of outspoken and unapologetic racists talking ab
49.
by ardy42 6y ago
> Powerful people will still be held in check by public opinion, market forces, and other powerful people. We don't need a centralized MiniTrue gatekeeping with its own agenda. Actually, in the absence of the professional journalism
50.
by ardy42 6y ago
> Is there any more toxic label you can attach to a person in contemporary America than "racist?" The actual article did not in fact label him as racist, and I don't think you could read it that way without being sloppy.
51.
by ardy42 6y ago
> this is what just happened with Scott Alexander. they tried to put his head on a pike, because he's a high value node in the tech community that's eroding the power of the legacy press. Put his head on a pike? They? Come on
52.
by ardy42 6y ago
> The WSJ has a ton of dubious articles. The Opinion pieces are garbage compared to the average one in the Times although of course both have misses I agree with you on that. I subscribed to both for awhile, but dropped the WSJ because
53.
by ardy42 6y ago
> I am wondering, what are the legal perspectives of suing NYT for libel at this point. None at all.
54.
by ardy42 6y ago
> NYT decided to dox him. Not really. "Doxing" [1] is from message board culture, but the NYT is not some poster on a message board. To expect them to abide by message board law in their newspaper as if they're just a
55.
by ardy42 6y ago
> At the moment this question is closed as "opinion based". Which is ridiculous. The -6 answer [1] also displays one of SO's other ridiculous habits: kinda ignorantly wander in to unhelpfully say the question is wrong and
56.
by ardy42 6y ago
> Eight of those ten are not even complete sentences, let alone "not blockquotes". A quote that is not a complete sentence is still a quote. > Every quote need not be a complete sentence or paragraph, but including almost no
57.
by ardy42 6y ago
> And then a slight bit more research would demonstrate that he wrote some fascinating left-leaning stuff before he jumped off that particular cliff, and that that's the stuff Scott thought was interesting. And then, after a little
58.
by ardy42 6y ago
> Hum, your definition of quote is very generous to the NYT, given than most of the 10 list items you mention are four words long or less. A quote that is not a blockquote is still a quote.
59.
by ardy42 6y ago
> My take: it doesn't actually quote SSC, what a failure. > https://howthehell.substack.com/p/nyt-ssc-quoting Am I reading that right? It complains the article didn't actually quote SSC, then contradic
60.
by ardy42 6y ago
> I think what people find abhorrent are the perceived implication rather than the message itself. I'm going to hazard the guess that you're perceiving the implication that saying class differences are hereditary is implying th

More ›