happytoexplain

3 ms·

31.
by happytoexplain 12d ago
People state this constantly. It's a very effective distraction (a distraction based on reality, to be clear - there are plenty of plain old racists out there, of course).
32.
by happytoexplain 12d ago
This is the fallacy of inventing a hypocrite by combining individual opinions from multiple people. Not one single tech person I know in person has ever been "pro immigration" or "anti immigration". They all want reason
33.
by happytoexplain 15d ago
The whole "it's like the printing press, cars, computers, etc etc" is a weak, blunt comparison. Not only are all those things, AI included, very different from each other, but even accepting the premise, critics of technology
34.
by happytoexplain 15d ago
Possibly for some things and possibly not for others. It's hard to say. The upsides and downsides are very apples-and-oranges. The point isn't that the world would be objectively better in every case, but rather that the arguments
35.
by happytoexplain 15d ago
I appreciate when people write things like, "this is an advertisement for the author's product, X." Why stay silent? If the commenter's accusation smells fishy, I'll read the article myself. Otherwise, they helped m
36.
by happytoexplain 15d ago
"Novel" is not a prerequisite for something to be worth pointing out. Lots of bad things happen repeatedly, and don't quickly become not worth caring about or knowing about. People have strong spirits and curious minds and it
37.
by happytoexplain 15d ago
Is "quietly" an LLM tell? It was always certainly a human writer trope commonly seen in journalism. Though I guess it does appear five times in the body of the post, and a human writer would probably not go that far with it.
38.
by happytoexplain 15d ago
Why would they need to differentiate? You're implying those arguments were wrong? The argument usually isn't "I believe X will not happen," it's usually either "I believe X should not happen" or "I be
39.
by happytoexplain 17d ago
What the fuck? Edit: Sorry to be brusque. You're suggesting that it's conscionable to disallow a bathroom break that would inconvenience customers or cause a fellow employee to be unable to progress? That category of work culture
40.
by happytoexplain 17d ago
>Let's take this out of the heated debate. Why? It's an emotional subject. We can debate it heatedly without becoming irrational. >In the most of the world and Iran (strangely we agree on this), we recognize a body of water
41.
by happytoexplain 17d ago
"Picking" is not the same as "declining to acknowledge a change to". You can make your argument perfectly well without pretending otherwise.
42.
by happytoexplain 17d ago
Both things are problematic.
43.
by happytoexplain 17d ago
There's a line. It's pointless to pretend "legality === nobody is allowed to disrespect you for complying". Regardless of which side of the line you land on, this is a fundamental truth. "They're just using its
44.
by happytoexplain 21d ago
Probably "is flawed" is closer to reality than "fails abysmally", in contrast to most modern implementations of DEI.
45.
by happytoexplain 22d ago
It's going over my head, too. I don't understand what the implication of the sentence is in context.
46.
by happytoexplain 23d ago
> we need to sympathize with employers in situations like this, at times Of course, at times, yes. Not at this time in American history, clearly. > When their business is crucial to society and can't function without the workers
47.
by happytoexplain 23d ago
Of the two-dozen or so technical people whose lives I am familiar with, three are doing well (not at all wealthy, just comfortable). Two got there with good jobs, the third gets everything from wealthy parents. The rest live with parents or
48.
by happytoexplain 23d ago
Utterly hideous. I hope to live to see the day this mentality is once again absent from the United States of America, and the English-speaking world in general.
49.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
I disagree. Enough people disagree that "blatant" is probably, by definition, not an appropriate adjective. But at the same time, I don't hold that position passionately. Maybe it is fascism. It's not "blatant"
50.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
I don't think this is helpful if somebody is trying to learn English subtleties. Responding to a person's thought with "You don't understand", and that's it, implies hostility/rudeness. People tend to read
51.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
I share your concern about the effects of white supremacy, but in this case it looks like there is no lesser or greater "evil'. Just a guy who expresses his opinions without delicacy.
52.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
You are not responding to the same commenter.
53.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
Right, I see what you mean. It's not entirely Microsoft's fault - I'm just taking a shot at them.
54.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
I completely agree that he was unnecessarily prickly/political in his response. I only disagree that it validates xgulfie's implication that he is in the "so bad we should disparage whatever he does" category.
55.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
I don't follow, especially since this is a reply to your own post. Can you clarify?
56.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
In the 2020's, this is just another genre of petty hatred. As time goes on, one "type" of person's historical privilege becomes less and less valid as a reason to reduce them in any way, as compared to anybody else (givi
57.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
These both look within the realm of reason. Not that you must agree with them, only that they are not some kind of hideous evil.
58.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
Oh, sorry, in English your wording appears insulting. What don't I understand?
59.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
It doesn't strictly follow, but it very much naturally (or arguably) follows.
60.
by happytoexplain 24d ago
I'm not saying it's FF's fault, but it undeniably runs worse on my machine.

More ›