julianmarq

7 ms·

1.
by julianmarq 5y ago
I saw some people saying that this makes them want to switch towards iphones next. I'm not gonna lie, I considered it for a moment too, like a year ago... But apple is now engaging in its own share of dark patterns and is now collectin
2.
by julianmarq 5y ago
Assuming this is true, all this tells me that this is a great time to apply at Basecamp. Not only they promise a politics-free environment—a huge bonus by itself for me—but they're likely to be laxer than usual in their standards, for
3.
by julianmarq 6y ago
It's pretty worrying how large companies use social media and its excesses (among other things) to divert focus away from their more suspect practices, so it can be pointed at other specific people. Regardless of whatever one thinks of
4.
by julianmarq 6y ago
The problem here lies in the word "sexism" and that, I think, you believe a solution should be to remove its baggage. The replies you get are, I think, because many people, with good reason, believe that such a goal isn't fea
5.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> There is a nonzero risk in any social interaction that involves giving critical feedback. Which leads me back to GP's point: there are only two choices. I take it that you're saying that the risk of the second choice can be i
6.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> They know when what they’re seeing is sexism vs critical feedback. One can't possibly guarantee that every founder (female or not) knows that, and in fact, TFA implies that many don't. So the possibility that at least one o
7.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> It appeared to me as a low quality response that did not actually have anything to do with my comment. I didn't think it was; it seemed to me a succinct summation of what calling the behavior in TFA "sexism" leads to: Ul
8.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> in a way that can't be reasonably construed as sexist "Reasonable" is the key word there. I think that one of the points in TFA is that the misconstruction doesn't need to reasonable to kill someone's caree
9.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> if you’re actually kind, fair and decent to women [...] A tweet against you isn’t an inevitable destruction of your career. I think we're never going to reach an agreement so I'm cutting out. The last thing I'll say is
10.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I don't think GP is saying that your comment by itself can be reduced to "damned if you do, damned if you don't". I think the point is that your position might lead to a Morton's fork in general . I interpret it
11.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> If everyone is giving honest, straightforward feedback, then everyone has a rumor about them and it becomes powerless. But this leads me back to my previous comment: this isn't a feasible solution because it means basically asking
12.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> try harder? have more tact? [...] have a little more awareness? But isn't the cautious behavior mentioned already an example of this?
13.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> People can spread any rumors they want. And those rumors kill careers, as TFA mentions. > The risk is still there from the first contact to the last. This is correct, and that's why this problem is very likely only going to get
14.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> we won’t fix it by giving into the fear of being labeled. But we can't fix it by doing otherwise—asking people to stop being "overly" cautious—either. Another comment put it best: that solution is akin to asking people t
15.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I don't know the solution to this problem, but I do think that turning it into a Morton's fork ("men are sexist regardless of whether they speak or not") is not it. Instead of playing semantics by saying that "it is
16.
by julianmarq 6y ago
The problem with this "solution" is that the risk is still too high to bother risking it. Even if the woman is unlikely to assume bad faith (and the likelihood is such, outrage mobs are a minority, even if one with too much weight
17.
by julianmarq 6y ago
Agreed, I'm definitely not comfortable with her phrasing in several sections of the article, and it clearly has an impact since some people are saying that this behavior is also male sexism. The author is, perhaps inadvertently, co
18.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> It is plainly a hit piece devoid of any substantive reporting or analysis. This is a great summation. To me it reads like the best attempt the journalist could pull off at writing a hit piece against some guy who just started a low cos
19.
by julianmarq 6y ago
Even if one thought that this would help the people that need help on this matter, you can't really fork signal as it is today, I think. Or at least whatever it is that signal is using on its servers because that is very unlikely to be
20.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I must have missed the statement in parentheses the first time I read it (I honestly don't remember it being there before, apologies), so I retract the part on what GP said about "should". However, I maintain that the comment
21.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> No, women don't need to spend their 20's finding a husband. They can have also go to school, volunteer, have friends, start a career. You know - the things men can do. Nothing in GP's comment suggests ~that women should
22.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> leaves me thinking of you what I initially assumed, but at least we're on the same page now. Likewise. Have a good day.
23.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I don't think you're asking those questions in good faith, but I'll try to answer hoping I'm wrong: "They" is the cancel culture mobs in twitter I mentioned in that same comment, and "cancel culture mental
24.
by julianmarq 6y ago
The thing I find most notable here is the reason he's being forced out. I mean, this guy probably does deserve to be fired... But Callimachi deserves to be fired right along with him, and she isn't. They were terrible at their job
25.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I apologize, dang. I understand how my phrasing can be taken as a generalization of everyone in HN, but that was not my intention. I wasn't trying to say that everyone in HN was advocating for censorship (if anything, I always feel a l
26.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> What do you call it when someone claims changes to the definition of "idiomatic" usage is the same as being not backwards compatible, incorrectly? I calmly corrected the incorrect statement. A) I have a very different interpr
27.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I made no attack in my comment and I don't appreciate the insinuation. > People should be allowed to say Well, you're not going to find disagreement on that area from me; everyone is, or should be, indeed allowed to say anyth
28.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> for those who support unbridled electronic speech amplification, are you prepared for it to fall in the hands of people who are bent on changing minds en masse to fill society with falsehoods, uncertainty, and violence? You mean a soci
29.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> You seem to be lumping speech restrictions and privacy violations into the same bucket, but I see them as very different, often even opposed to each other. And yet today there was an article in the front page claiming that Signal is a
30.
by julianmarq 6y ago
With "GP" I meant the original comment, the one by sebmellen. The comment you linked is another misinterpretation of sebmellen's original point. My comment applies as much to that one as it does to the one I replied to.

More ›