TreeRingCounter

6 ms·

1.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
This has nothing to do with expectations - it's an inquiry into why something is worse now, without a clear justification.
2.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
If your reaction is personal outrage at me rather than considering the issue at hand, you are probably too emotionally involved to form a useful opinion.
3.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
You're making things up about me (all untrue, incidentally) so you can write off my argument as heartless or something instead of actually addressing it.
4.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Why would I want to talk to someone about an issue I couldn't possibly expect them to have a rational opinion on? > One of the frustrating aspects of arguments like this Is people insisting on making a society-scale issue into a per
5.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Very sad stuff, but nonetheless I have zero interest in subsidizing your social preferences (either through regulation or litigation costs). Lots of people live good lives without going to restaurants all the time. Have a barbecue or someth
6.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
> Schools started doing so because it became a serious liability issue with kids weaponizing it for bullying and leading to death This sounds completely absurd and hyperbolic, but let's say I took it at face value - why is this an i
7.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
"Free speech" is not the notion of "say whatever you want regardless of if it's helpful"; it's "don't prevent people from saying things that are subjectively unhelpful". Free speech "pragmat
8.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
I guarantee you that schools were not throwing out peanut butter sandwiches when I was a kid, and many of the schools I went to are doing so now. I'm sure you can find an article about peanut allergies at any point in recorded history
9.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
> it is not "socially efficient" to make any accommodations to disability More or less. The overwhelming majority of legally mandated disability subsidies in the US are horrendously anti-utilitarian. > It would be "so
10.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
> Soylent Green is “socially efficient.” No it's not, but it's a good sniff test for people who have a zeroth-order model of utilitarianism and aren't thinking about things like incentives. > It’s increasing, for some r
11.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Federal laws mandating absurdly costly subsidies of very small minorities is not what "high-trust society" means. You're right in one sense - living in a low-trust society is very socially inefficient. I just don't think
12.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
We shouldn't be doing either of these things. It wasn't a serious problem 20 years ago when kids would bring whatever allergens to lunch. Throwing away peanut foods is an absurd overreaction and misdirection of food-safety resourc
13.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Why don't you just stop eating at restaurants and/or take appropriate steps to protect yourself?
14.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
> The odds that a homemade food stand accidentally gives a stray peanut to a consumer with a deadly allergy are low The odds per food item consumed are higher for small food businesses that aren't as easily forced into absurd clean-
15.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
What are you expecting, a post where you say "you're not allowed to talk about controversial topics"? No, the way this works is that a controversial topic comes up, an interesting conversation ensues, you see something you do
16.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
> At least for me, the idea of HN being a place where people exercise free flowing polarizing ideas is pretty foreign Precisely. HN used to be a lot more about discussing novel/controversial ideas freely. That kind of discussion is
17.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
While I really dislike the track of moderation policy on HN over the last 5+ years, I do have a lot of respect for dang being willing to engage in earnest discussion about moderation when prompted.
18.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
The guidelines are (I assume intentionally) vague enough that moderation can selectively object to basically anything, claim it's on the basis of tone/personal attack/flamewar risk/etc, link to the guidelines with no fur
19.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
> it also gradually managed to cure me from free-speech absolutism It's entirely unsurprising that people who appreciate current moderator behavior also have zero philosophical backbone.
20.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
This theorem is completely irrelevant - the equivalence relation described by the theorem does not imply an equivalence between ordinal relationships imposed by different choice of norm. Also, "tails" isn't the same as &quo
21.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Take the fourier transform of a clipped signal - it will have high frequency components. In general, the more pointy edges you introduce to a waveform, the more high frequency artifacts you get. This aspect of pontryagin duality (narrow in
22.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Take a sine wave below your system's Nyquist frequency. Chop off the top. Take the continuous Fourier transform. You will notice that there are now frequency components above the Nyquist limit of your system. Those will now be aliased
23.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
> All norms on finite-dimensional vector spaces are equivalent How are you going to tell me that an L1 norm is equivalent to an L2 norm, for example?
24.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
The article seems to blame "the bankers" for not investing in nuclear fusion, while completely ignoring the fact that most of the cost of new nuclear construction is from regulatory changes that happened in the last 50 years.
25.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
This sounds like nonsense. We're talking about multivariate distributions, and you haven't defined a norm by which ordinal comparisons can be made between sample points.
26.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
This is such a silly and trivially debunked claim. I'm shocked it comes up so frequently. These systems can generate novel content . They manifestly haven't just memorized a bunch of stuff.
27.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Logan is >80% Mormon. Indeed, when you have high-trust, high-IQ, low-crime demographics, it becomes a lot more practical to address property crimes - there aren't very many of them, and there aren't many serious crimes higher u
28.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Perfect, thanks.
29.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
Can someone summarize this? 90% of the content on this page seems like excessively-verbose nonsense.
30.
by TreeRingCounter 4y ago
The marginal upside to everyone else is not even close to worth the marginal downside to me. It's my choice to make. If a government wants to force messages on me so badly, they can set up something like an air raid siren (and they typ

More ›