butter999

6 ms·

1.
by butter999 2y ago
You are applying standards only to my comments. Your statements are just as "sweeping" and "silent". We're both just asserting stuff based on our experiences, but it only seems to be a problem when I do it. I'm
2.
by butter999 2y ago
Don't we all have a lot to teach and a lot to learn? Same to you, have a good one.
3.
by butter999 2y ago
By "appropriate" I meant "fitting" or "suitable". Just in case you took my meaning as "inappropriate in conversation," I could have been more clear, my mistake. My supposition about the necessity of g
4.
by butter999 2y ago
The motivations seem pretty plain. They were anticipating the question, "why did you host this site yourself?" I don't think there's any need to read further into it. You seem to have come to that conclusion yourself. Th
5.
by butter999 2y ago
I believe you when you say you made no error and that it was part of your rhetorical strategy. The problem is that your rhetorical strategy was to mischaracterize the author's statement in order to weaken it. That's dishonest. Say
6.
by butter999 2y ago
You weren't speaking rhetorically, you were mischaracterizing what the author said to weaken their statement. That's the most charitable way to describe it without parting from the facts. > If the author doesn't want to di
7.
by butter999 2y ago
The source of petty disagreement, in this instance, is that you went to this website, clicked on "about," found an offhand mention of CoCs, which you took out of context to derail the conversation and start an argument. You compla
8.
by butter999 2y ago
If you read the page then I don't understand why you continue to mischaracterize what it says. Eg, the page offers multiple examples of de Raadt swearing at people, which you characterize as "swearing at one person." Frankly,
9.
by butter999 2y ago
I agree, I think any test that gets you a meaningfully different result if you take it twice or are coached beforehand isn't measuring something intrinsic or meaningful, I'm just trying to help bridge a miscommunication.
10.
by butter999 2y ago
a.) They found it off-putting that OpenBSD was "proud" not to have a CoC, in the context of whether they would choose to work with them or to host the website themselves. Consider taking a moment to read the passage in question:
11.
by butter999 2y ago
You probably meant that there doesn't exist a total order for comparing intelligence and/or that it isn't a scalar quantity like height, but "linear" didn't convey that meaning.
12.
by butter999 2y ago
Granted. However, the quote at issue doesn't come out of left field. It is natural to consider the internal politics of an open source project when writing a wide ranging, in depth critique of the project. Plenty of projects don'
13.
by butter999 2y ago
Dogs who hurt people are put down. Every municipality employs people for animal control. We have "dog control" already. I honestly can't fathom suggesting people don't pay attention to teen drug use. It takes up a lot of
14.
by butter999 2y ago
You must know some very particular people, because I have met a lot of people who want gun control, but this is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest we might ban pitbulls.
15.
by butter999 2y ago
The onus is always on you to figure out what information is and is not reliable. People who haven't stated their feelings still have them. They might still be pursuing an agenda other than being informative. If anything, someone statin
16.
by butter999 2y ago
I think it's strange to assert that LDS is the only subject worth studying in this regard, and it's less that I'm disinterested than that I don't want to say something I don't have full confidence in about a very to
17.
by butter999 2y ago
In every cult I've ever read about, it's pretty clear that the person at the center was creating a structure that enabled them to abuse people. I'm sure there were people involved who were true believers. But the cult leaders
18.
by butter999 2y ago
Cults are scams designed to entrap and abuse people. Everything else is window dressing; their ideological positions will ultimately be changed or abandoned to consolidate the cult leader's power (ie Synanon spent years espousing a com
19.
by butter999 2y ago
You've not really elaborated on how your views apply to this discussion and the original comment. If your commentary is generic rather than related to this particular discussion, then it was already priced into the discussion, and didn
20.
by butter999 2y ago
Say something provocative, and you'll provoke a response. It's not that deep.
21.
by butter999 2y ago
I invite you to elaborate, because because while I see how it's true you should draw conclusions from what you see in general, abstract terms, I don't understand what you mean to imply in the context of the comment I made (eg &quo
22.
by butter999 2y ago
For what it's worth, I always downvote "I can't speak my mind because my opinions are too controversial" comments, but I don't downvote controversial comments if they're thoughtful. I think most of the time whe
23.
by butter999 2y ago
a.) While I can't possibly know, yes, I think there's a very good chance. I think it's the top comment chiefly because it expressed a view that was popular with commenters. It's not like AI is a magic spell that bewitche
24.
by butter999 2y ago
A lesson to take from this is, "if a post expresses strong opinions, and you believe AI was involved in it's generation, then they probably used AI to edit, not to generate whole cloth." A hallmark of ChatGPT is an unwillingn
25.
by butter999 2y ago
That's pretty weak tea. A retort, not a rebuttal. Since you aren't interested in engaging with the substance of my comment, I'll not engage any further with yours.
26.
by butter999 2y ago
At this point this is just a "no true Scotsman." Any counterexample you're offered, you decide doesn't count. I don't know why you're entrenched in this position, but I don't think you're willing to e
27.
by butter999 2y ago
Consider that the people who feel most disenfranchised might not be coming to the meetings and such you're drawing from. I don't really understand your second statement, it would only make sense to me if you didn't consider t
28.
by butter999 2y ago
People claiming on HN they won't call the cops might be all talk, I can't possibly know, but if you don't know anyone who won't call the police, you don't know people low on the socioeconomic ladder. And that's
29.
by butter999 2y ago
It does appear in the article. > The group is a radical offshoot of the Rationalism movement, focusing on matters such as veganism and artificial intelligence destroying humanity. You yourself seem to acknowledge this as a fact.
30.
by butter999 2y ago
Their reputation is being friendly to shareholders. Shareholders brought a suit alleging Musk's pay package was inappropriate. It came out in the lawsuit that the people charged with negotiating with Musk were actually taking direction

More ›