vyhd

6 ms·

1.
by vyhd 6y ago
I wouldn't call it "obvious" that someone would accept another's opinion without any info to back it up and then extol it, though it's very interesting to me that you did.
2.
by vyhd 6y ago
I'm sure you would, but at least do us the decency of bringing data and leaving hyperbole out.
3.
by vyhd 6y ago
This is a wildly incendiary ideological rant and it has no place on HN.
4.
by vyhd 6y ago
What data did your friend use to come to that conclusion? Would you be willing to share so we can come to our own conclusions based on the evidence presented?
5.
by vyhd 6y ago
That's what a free market is, yes. edit: or would you prefer "that's what a free market does"? Either way, this is a remarkably incendiary, and frankly absurd, attempt to recast voting with one's wallet as "dic
6.
by vyhd 6y ago
HN, in the general case, values civility over decency when the two conflict. I regard it as a fundamental flaw; your mileage may vary.
7.
by vyhd 6y ago
Citation please.
8.
by vyhd 6y ago
I am deeply ambivalent about my tenure at Amazon overall, but I unconditionally applaud the level of psychological safety in their dev culture: there is a shared understanding that any system failure caused by a single person is necessaril
9.
by vyhd 6y ago
There really isn't a discussion to be had, unless you seriously want to try the claim that "shallow" and "substance-free" don't have substantial overlap. Just accept that your comment did not live up to the gui
10.
by vyhd 6y ago
They're referencing the site guidelines, so this statement is demonstrably false.
11.
by vyhd 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
12.
by vyhd 6y ago
Normative statements are based on one's observations and interpretations of facts, and that basis can be meaningfully scrutinized.
13.
by vyhd 6y ago
I'm not dang, but I'm going to refer you to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html , because this is remarkably inconsiderate and inflammatory rhetoric.
14.
by vyhd 6y ago
> "But they're really really actually super-duper truly totally bad!" isn't a valid argument, since many, many people can use it and they will. It is absurdity to make the claim that, since anyone can say anything, n
15.
by vyhd 6y ago
No, they got it right the first time. "Everything is political" is a reminder that we do not exist in a cultural vacuum. More pointedly, the simple act of existing in a space as a minority invites what you'd call "politi
16.
by vyhd 6y ago
You refuse to acknowledge that sedition actually occurred , choosing instead to worry over a theoretical slippery slope of censorship that somehow ends the United States. QED. Safe to say we're done here.
17.
by vyhd 6y ago
> loaded words The literal definition of sedition [1] is: If two or more persons [...] conspire [...] to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property
18.
by vyhd 6y ago
The United States will be done in by... stamping out the free expression of openly organizing to commit sedition against the United States. Spare us.
19.
by vyhd 6y ago
It's a damning indictment of "big tech" that it took Democrats having a trifecta in federal government and a violent mob breaking into the Capitol during a congressional session to get this level of investment in moderating
20.
by vyhd 6y ago
> Increasingly, you step out of line once with the Left-leaning mindset, you are muted or banned. Citation needed.
21.
by vyhd 6y ago
A tale as old as HN itself: a service enforces its own Terms of Service, and commenters fall over themselves to defend an absurd absolutist ideal of "free speech" even when it directly leads to a violent mob committing sedition ag
22.
by vyhd 6y ago
Non sequitur.
23.
by vyhd 6y ago
You may notice there's quite a gulf between "uncomfortable" and literal sedition [1]. > To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of th
24.
by vyhd 6y ago
At what scale? How does it compare to the 6,600 pedestrians killed by drivers in 2019 [1]? Is it even within three orders of magnitude? [1]: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31136893/pedestrian-death...
25.
by vyhd 6y ago
I agree that the fault ultimately lies with the Bush administration for making false claims. However, it is _critically_ important to also place fault with the media outlets who simply repeated those claims, abandoning their duty as a check
26.
by vyhd 6y ago
This is literally the only take I've read in this entire comment thread that has a firm grasp on the entire picture. Thanks for that.
27.
by vyhd 6y ago
It's more akin to "a virus is less likely to spread if fewer people are in contact with known carriers", a.k.a. deplatforming.
28.
by vyhd 6y ago
Identifying lies doesn't require perfect knowledge of all truth.
29.
by vyhd 6y ago
Hopefully this proves to be an illustrative lesson: the best apologies are almost as good as not doing something that requires an apology at all.
30.
by vyhd 6y ago
Fortunately, most of the public are not making that demand. It's well worth keeping in mind that those people are vastly outnumbered: https://xkcd.com/2305/

More ›