jshevek

7 ms·

1.
by jshevek 6y ago
You are completely correct. Regarding your first and last sentences, the C19 invasion of HN has normalized "Did you read the article?" style comments, though this is explicitly recommended against in the guidelines: https:/
2.
by jshevek 6y ago
No, that source does not validate your claim. Rick Perry did not "attack regulation".
3.
by jshevek 6y ago
Yes, even further the guidelines suggest that snark has no place on HN. One day we may undo the damage done by the massive influx of C19 redditers. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: Replying to the mis
4.
by jshevek 6y ago
I see a sarcastic misrepresentation of the parent's comment, and nothing of substance here. Is there a deeper, substantial point you wish to make?
5.
by jshevek 6y ago
> If you dig into the sourcing if the Colorado Sun's article, it cites an Instagram post[1] as evidence the business is closing, but the post says no such thing In that post, they announced that they will be closing, with the proxim
6.
by jshevek 6y ago
Yes, you are correct. Noting that [not] all cancel efforts are the same, and I'm sure there are edge cases and exceptions, it seems that generally cancel culture efforts often gain momentum when the target shows 'perceived weaknes
7.
by jshevek 6y ago
You make assertions which would require that the author was mistaken, while ungraciously and unfairly accusing them of lying . Posted elsewhere in this thread is evidence suggesting the possiblity that you may, in fact, have been mistaken
8.
by jshevek 6y ago
No, I'm not arguing that proof is necessary for certainty. I'm pointing out that the implied reasoning is akin to argument from ignorance. We don't have to take a position on a topic if we are ignorant, but we often do so w
9.
by jshevek 6y ago
Are you saying that because they are now open, they never closed down?
10.
by jshevek 6y ago
My point is only that you strongly implied a fallacious argument, which damages your ability to reason on a topic.
11.
by jshevek 6y ago
That you cannot imagine an approach doesn't mean an approach doesn't exist. It may be possible to form a generalized understanding of an individuals predisposition based on testing with other substances, just as one example.
12.
by jshevek 6y ago
Can you explain the strawman you believe the parent is presenting? What is the original argument, and what is the misrepresentation?
13.
by jshevek 6y ago
That "hip jargon" is concise, specifies characteristics, and clarifies meaning.
14.
by jshevek 6y ago
> Well, one thing you know is that poster knows no one reliant on powered medical devices. No, this is simply a baseless assumption made by you, with an effect similar to poisoning the well. I know people on medical devices, and one d
15.
by jshevek 6y ago
The parent stated their experience (one day without power) and the willingness to pay more for a specific change, they didn't say anything about longer time frames. If a single day of power outage will cause a person to die, such as t
16.
by jshevek 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
17.
by jshevek 6y ago
I agree. Curious, I started looking at the specific comments and commentator's post histories to see when they became active. As the tone changed, like minded people became comfortable and emboldened. (By the way, your use of the word
18.
by jshevek 6y ago
I interpreted it as: Generally the clothes they wear are either too nice or too nasty for wiping clean wet hands. At the library and Starbucks they wear clothes appropriate for wiping hands. Too nasty makes sense to me, if you work landsca
19.
by jshevek 6y ago
Yes, this definitely contributes. You see these changes in the language used and in the voting habits as well.
20.
by jshevek 6y ago
Yes. If it helps, the script blocking toggle in Brave allows me to read it.
21.
by jshevek 6y ago
I sometimes find word choice to be a reliable heuristic for evaluating the probable worth of some prose, but I don't see why, in this case, you feel this way. Would you mind elaborating? (Assuming your conclusion is indeed based on th
22.
by jshevek 6y ago
I could be wrong, but I assumed it had the necessary number of (presumably fake) 5 star reviews that had no comments, and that the parent post was listing only those reviews that left comments. Edit: In other words, "reviews" belo
23.
by jshevek 6y ago
This can be hard to predict, but the following is sometimes helpful: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
24.
by jshevek 6y ago
On this site, at least, you will have fewer downvotes if you don't speculate about downvote motivation.
25.
by jshevek 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
26.
by jshevek 6y ago
You are correct, and this is important. The flood of 2020 newcomers have not acculturated, creating frequent misapprehensions.
27.
by jshevek 6y ago
Yes, Poe's law. Elsewhere you say: > explains some of the change in tone here on HN 2020 was the year of HN's eternal September, facilitated by the behavior changes brought by c19. If you can recommend a similar forum that stil
28.
by jshevek 6y ago
> Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue. Issues can be moral, legal, neither, and both. Presuming an issue is strictly legal can preemptively invalidate efforts to address moral aspects of the issue.
29.
by jshevek 6y ago
Begging the question is a specific logical fallacy which does not apply in this case.
30.
by jshevek 6y ago
> This isn't censorship, this is just a private company deciding who is and isn't allowed on their platform This fits the definition of censorship. Maybe you meant to say this isn't governmental censorship? Edit: Poe&#x2

More ›