tangled_zans

13 ms·

91.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Damn, that's great news!
92.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Cheers for the share!
93.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Clever. I don't get why people can't just label their ads with random letters though?
94.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Theranos has been the only biotech firm that I've seen mentioned on the news lately. Is there anything GOOD happening in biotech right now?
95.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
How long does it take for comments in an HN thread to become closed?
96.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
I referred to the OP with a gendered pronoun because he misnamed Caitlyn and it is well known that men are more likely to mislabel trans women, as well as more likely to be trolls online - as you are being now, so I assume that you are male
97.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Please do, I would totally read something like that.
98.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
What an excellent linking of groups to monads, I really enjoyed reading this! Thanks for writing it up.
99.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
How about we take it a step forward and say "woman caused two developers to be fired"? Or even better. "A person at a tech conference caused two developers to be fired". That way we can judge the situation within its own
100.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
I think the OP has made his point quite well already, and I understood him. No need for added outrage.
101.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Yes I think I've already reached an understanding with the OP, but thanks for chiming in.
102.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Replying here cos I can't reply to your other comment. Either I have been so bad at communicating my point that it came out as garbled nonsense or you've confused me with someone else. I am all for people being able to downvote
103.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
I've noticed that any time a debate of this sort comes up, and someone states a strong view supporting either side, the other side will start downvoting them. That's usually counteracted by their own side upvoting them back up. It
104.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Great article. Odd though that so many commenter choose to interpret this as "look! clear proof that there is no sexism! everyone has been overreacting about it!" If you don't believe that sexism is a real issue, look at sour
105.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Yes, "she cost them their jobs". That's a "valid interpretation" of the story.
106.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
"You didn't actually cubano's point. You're straight so you weren't attracted to any of the guys who approached you. cubano was saying it would be different if you were approached by a woman you were interested in.
107.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
It's not about disagreement. The poster put "scare quotes" around sexism, implying that the issue does not even exist or is worth discussing. That's not an "opinion" it's an implicit way of saying that eve
108.
Why can't you collapse threads on HN?
13 points by tangled_zans 11y ago|1 comments
109.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Hmm, you are right, I read into it a bit too much. Like I said, I felt insulted by you labelling my off-hand comment as "outrage", especially after you agreed that I was factually correct. In hindsight I can see why you took offen
110.
Ask HN: Is it hypocritical to take offence at someone taking offence?
1 points by tangled_zans 11y ago|0 comments
111.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
I acknowledge that this is how libertarians see themselves, but it is inherently dishonest to assume that just because someone disagrees with you then they're doing it out of a misunderstanding and overreaction about you "trying t
112.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
The initial comment was just a joke, mate (clearly you're the one choosing to be outraged over my tone?) which came out of my assumption that it's impossible to both know that she is transgender and that she does not want to be ca
113.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Yes, that was indeed the case. Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claim
114.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Huh. Well, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that it's probably some other aspect of libertarianism that offended them. Just saying. Unless they're actually offended by non-violence, in which case they proba
115.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
What outrage? Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.
116.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
(Caitlyn. Caitlyn Jenner. Surely the definition of "transgender" couldn't have eluded you while you were making a point about her being transgender?)
117.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
You have 1400 karma, how did you not figure out what the downvote button is for up until now?
118.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Expressing your opinions today is a pretty big thing too! For example, here's mine: In my opinion when some dude enters a conversation and calls a huge chunk of the people in it "intellectually lazy and weak", that dude is ki
119.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
What is your political affiliation that you shared? I am curious to know if I would empathise with someone wanting to delegate blocking people with your affiliation by a communal block list.
120.
by tangled_zans 11y ago
Way to have a holier-than-though attitude right off the bat. "Oh, look at me, I am so misunderstood for having OPINIONS" Your opinions are that it's OK to casually look down on people for having political views. I think that&

More ›