thegrimmest

80 ms·

901.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
If these sources of data are actually more accurate predictors of creditworthiness, then shouln't we be applauding their use? If it so happens that tall people are less likely to repay loans, why is it wrong to charge tall people hig
902.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
I'd like to disagree. I think an employer (or any person) has a right to place a video camera any place on their property they could otherwise hire a person to sit and watch. This person can see things and testify to them, essentially
903.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
It seems like disagreement in any degree can be interpreted as an incitement to violence if you have supporters who are prone to violence. While I support the right of private companies to do as they please, I think that Net Neutrality has
904.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
Can you kindly clarify what exactly constitutes "inflated rhetoric and flamebait" and how to distinguish it from what I see in this case as a statement on the value or lack thereof of human life? Can the subject be discussed witho
905.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
If we were optimizing for reducing harm to innocent people, then we would in fact summarily execute violent criminals who are guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. My point was not about retribution, but exactly the opposite - optimizing for the
906.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
It's a statement of my honest belief. I'm not being hyperbolic or rhetorical. Edit: I go on to elaborate that I see their value as lower than that of pets and farm animals, whom we summarily execute all the time. Edit: I should cl
907.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
While we're straining, the more important question is to what degree is it ethical to impose your definition of fair on others. I would say that there is no ethical basis for the sort of extreme imposition that's currently the sta
908.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
> I don't see anything bad happening to me, so everyone shouldn't care either! What about: > people's rights to have consensual interactions and relationships with each other are more important than their right to be tr
909.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
Can I just step in, in defense of individualism and meritocracy here? I would like to challenge the perception of issues as systematic being a universal fact. You first have to accept that groups, as opposed to individuals, are responsible
910.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
> So, if it is the fault of each black individual, as you claim is the underpinning of society, why are black communities being more policed? Because effective policing means distributing police resources according to demand? > police
911.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
> That is a value we hold, but there is nothing "factual" about it, so this is an example of diluting the word "fact" to mean other things. This is true - this is a value, not a fact. It is a value however that underp
912.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
You can only attack difference that is broadcasted. "Keep to yourself" is another way of phrasing it. This means don't go advertising and monpolizing the attention of others with your differences. Live your private live in pr
913.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
> It is a reasonable perspective to have that if black Americans engage in more violence, it is because they have been subjected to more violence and deprived of opportunity. And that, ultimately, is in many cases, the responsibility of
914.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
Right, and what I'm saying is that there can be an upside to increased social pressure to conform to social norms (also known as being polite) which is suggested by social cooling. I'm also saying that it's not equivalent to
915.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
Behaviour expected by social norms and with purely social consequences is much preferred to behaviour dictated by governments which can have legal and physical consequences. In the first case, you are (supposed to be) protected from physica
916.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
That's kind of the point though isn't it? I imagine folks are rather more polite in a small town than a big city. I don't think having lots of privacy is a natural state for people. I think transparency is the ally of good an
917.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
I don't find using WhatsApp or Signal groups to communicate with my distant friends particularly hard. These particular corporate platforms are quite ubiquitous. I'm also not particularly worried about being canceled for what I sa
918.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
I'd say it's because corporate power is much more fragily held than goverment power. A startup can ruin a corporation - it takes a revolution to ruin a government.
919.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
I think the thing that will cool off is the generation of outrage, and heated (note the term), emotional discourse. > I do think the trend towards shutting people down who you don't agree with is terrible. I think the more considere
920.
by thegrimmest 6y ago
Is it wrong to suggest that this (if accurate) is a positive trend? I would like to live in a society where people spend more time considering what they say publicly, keeping to themselves, and refraining from imposing their thoughts and op
921.
by thegrimmest 9y ago
Corporations may be groups of people but they don't get treated like people They don't have to be. All we have to do is hold individuals accountable for their actions. If a person in a corporation orders violent suppressio
922.
by thegrimmest 9y ago
And they should continue to do that. In fact this works quite well without government interference (labour/union law) or even in spite of it (See the Indian independence movement). I'm suggesting we need the government to protect
923.
by thegrimmest 9y ago
Minimum wage is certainly protected by law. Look at countries where there aren't OSHA-like laws and see how well they do there That's exactly my point though isn't it? We still rely on goods produced in those places, w
924.
by thegrimmest 9y ago
the companies used violence to try and get their way And that's exactly where we need the state, in order to protect us from violence. I'd just like there to be limits on the scope of its authority. Corporations are just
925.
by thegrimmest 9y ago
Can I say "yes" without being down-voted? I'd like the government not to limit free association of moral agents. Two people should be free to work together under whatever arrangement they voluntarily enter into. All our curre
926.
Show HN: (Another) Wordpress Deployment Strategy(github.com)
5 points by thegrimmest 13y ago|0 comments
927.
by thegrimmest 14y ago
Does not seem to be working in Chrome for Android, version 18.0.1025469. Spoilers do not appear blurred.