rmxt

9 ms·

91.
by rmxt 11y ago
Your two sentences are contradictory. If some members of those 23% would be there without AA, then some amount greater than 77% of those currently present would be there without AA.
92.
by rmxt 11y ago
"The converse of this is that 23% of non-Asian minorities are only there due to affirmative action, and would not be there under a meritocratic system." AA and meritocratic systems are not mutually exclusive. Some combination of t
93.
by rmxt 11y ago
Call the desire to rid the web of ads "destructive" if you please, but don't call those wishes "self-destructive" from the user's perspective. It is completely within the user's prerogative to filter whate
94.
IKEA Assembles a Solution for Syrian Refugees(csmonitor.com)
1 points by rmxt 11y ago|0 comments
95.
by rmxt 11y ago
There is no strawman. This is the claim that you've made: "The opposite, though, happens all the time." The original claim is 'police break into houses and no one calls local gang/NCAAP/#BLM/ACORN/oth
96.
by rmxt 11y ago
I am asking you to provide evidence that "#BLM", if it can even really be considered a cohesive movement with a defined purpose, supports or performs home invasions. And, evidence that the NAACP openly supports or harbors crimina
97.
by rmxt 11y ago
Do you have evidence or are you just smearing people and groups for the sake of your argument? "Gangs commit crime" is sort of a truism, but for the others... that's going to take some evidence.
98.
by rmxt 11y ago
Is that much different than what Facebook or Google Maps are already doing behind the scenes? They might not make that data accessible to you, but it's undoubtedly being (or able to be) compiled behind the scenes. See this update: htt
99.
by rmxt 11y ago
Distilling one's "like" of a person down to their sexual preference [or skin color/religion/take on abortion/etc.] isn't exactly the best way to promote ideas and discussion, either. I am not sure if someo
100.
by rmxt 11y ago
Calling /r/SJWhate and /r/SJSucks hateful are calling spades, spades. I've said nothing about the moral compass of the movement as a whole. To go way back upthread, I was responding strictly to the point that "
101.
by rmxt 11y ago
I'm not demanding hypersensitivity, I'm simply claiming that the path towards better debate is one where emotional invective is left off the table. If you can clearly explain why classifying people as "raving lunatics" a
102.
by rmxt 11y ago
I don't have to do much "smearing by implication" when the upvoted comments speak for themselves. I think there are people that do this sort of "bullying" and unproductive rabble-rousing on both sides of the debate.
103.
by rmxt 11y ago
The extreme of both sides of this debate, as illustrated in your post and in the actions of the most egregious student complaints at Yale, lack the nuance needed to find a healthy compromise. Those subreddits are "less than agreeable&q
104.
by rmxt 11y ago
Is it too far-fetched to conceive that there might only be sub-optimal decisions to choose from for some people? Not saying that this is strictly the case for all people, but I certainly can imagine that there are some for whom "pare
105.
by rmxt 11y ago
I'm not doing this mixing unintentionally -- I'm trying to sort out what you are trying to achieve in your response to the GP. The "appeal to mom" is, I agree, a valid response to part of DickingAround's assertion
106.
by rmxt 11y ago
This kind of dismissive post deserves some sort of name, because it's not the first time on HN I've read about "the common person (mom) doesn't care about surveillance"... perhaps an "appeal to mom", as a
107.
by rmxt 11y ago
The story of public housing in the United States is quite a bit more nuanced then occupants "biting the hand that feeds," so to speak. There's a history of disinvestment and bias in the system that has had lasting repercussio
108.
by rmxt 11y ago
What you are calling "evidence", I am calling an unfounded assertion. You insist that polls aren't/can't be valid indicators of public preference, and you don't have hard data regarding the preference "in
109.
by rmxt 11y ago
Your seatbelt can't blackmail you, nor pull "LOVEINT" like maliciousness against you (i.e., it has no real negatives). Extensive surveillance, mass or not, is rife with the possibility for abuse.
110.
by rmxt 11y ago
Just because it requires "selectors" before it can provide output, doesn't mean that it's not taking bulk communication as input. How can something that requires "minimization procedures" be anything besides ma
111.
by rmxt 11y ago
Communication spying of the PRISM variety [1] is exactly the kind of thing that should aid in the prevention of lone wolf style attacks. You're telling me that a modern lone wolf never uses a web search to find out "how to [buy
112.
by rmxt 11y ago
"not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true." You are unable to provide evidence, i.e. data, to support your claim (yet again). I cannot prove a statement false if there is no evidence to call into dispute. You do not h
113.
by rmxt 11y ago
So your point is unfalsifiable? If you don't have evidence and accrued data, then your assertion seems like a point without value then. ("Sorry you had to find out this way.")
114.
by rmxt 11y ago
Do you have statistics that actually justify your statement? For some reason, I doubt that there has ever been a poll that directly seeks to determine whether more people care about speeding, or about surveillance overreaches. Without such
115.
by rmxt 11y ago
Somehow I feel that "grandstanding politicians" have a bit more say in how matters play out for Snowden, than do keyboard warriors on HN. Discounting what politicians believe due to their blow-hardiness is ignoring what the middle
116.
by rmxt 11y ago
See http://www.salon.com/2013/11/11/vanity_fair_editor_is_a_loon...
117.
by rmxt 11y ago
When your "truth" is nothing more than an off-handed, ill-conceived misinterpretation of the implications of the research... you should probably reconsider your "truth". The only ugly truth in any of this is that opinion
118.
by rmxt 11y ago
Interesting visualizations that confirm what personal observations definitely suggest, but....no citation as to where the data came from? Seems pretty important to me. I find it hard to believe that there are so few "shops" north
119.
by rmxt 11y ago
The answer to hyperbolic statements in a forum like HN shouldn't be.... more hyperbolic statements. The GP's statements might not be grounded in facts or statistics, but neither are yours.
120.
by rmxt 11y ago
Poor comparison -- you are drawing a comparison between averages that are on different orders of magnitude. Being "below average" in one case and "above average" in another case doesn't make suddenly make them equiv

More ›