most academic peer review is at this point is a joke though. i know everyone wants to hold onto it as some kind of high standard but it really isn't all what it used to be, it functions almost identical to SEO for academics at this point.
this dated mentality combined with wikipedia's culture of inconsistent topical gatekeeping is the source of much strife.
If you take a reductive point of view, everything in life – school applications, job interviews, business deals, legal battles, courtship, .... – involves some amount of self promotion and every form of social proof can be gamed/hacked to some degree.
(For example, in 2005 Google made up a brand new prize to award to Ruby on Rails creator David Heinemeier Hansson expressly for the purpose of padding out his O-1 visa application to move to the USA. Does that mean the O-1 visa requirements/criteria are bullshit? Maybe.)
(a) Wikipedia notability guidelines can certainly be gamed to some extent by motivated self-promoters who are willing to jump through hoops to place their pet topics in newspaper articles, research papers, published books, etc.
(b) Sometimes Wikipedia ends up rejecting topics that should be included based on a lack of sufficient third-party write-ups in secondary sources.
But Wikipedia still has to have some kind of guideline to prevent itself from being flooded with self-promotion spam, and the current notability guidelines and reliable source guidelines work better than many suggested alternatives.
Only if anyone want to live there. Why would anyone want to purchase a house or live in a place how ever affordable it is, where a mob might burn their house down.
The way I read this is that the more desirable a city is to property devs, the lower the cost of housing, which seems true. Affordable housing = Less scarcity, less scarcity comes from building more
it's checkbox compliance all the way up to the top. it's only for show as if people wanted a rigorous solution the problem, the mechanisms in play and each possible solution would have been documented in autistic detail before anyone put it out. this is a kind of issue you would keep junior talent and HR far far away from at all costs. this is software after all, people who care about something specific, care a LOT. this topic is a real issue but it has been tainted by racial political framing. imo, start with women in tech first, then go from there.
with a push for "racial equity" combined with an inept middle management and hr who in order to get equal outcome will push people down instead of lifting people up, the only thing i can see from this is a sharp rise in ethno nationalist idiocy across the board.
i dont want to be right about it but i am not going to be shocked if i start seeing such bubble up as a reaction to this kind of short sighted strategy.
very convenient that a lot of bot accounts suddenly follows an account for people trying to amplify the accessibility of information of a trial that is suspiciously low profile considering the people involved.
if you listen to trueanon they had to open multiple overflow rooms becuase press agents from all over the world are lining up hours early to get it, it's not low profile.
I just opened the front pages of CNN, Fox News, BBC News and NBC News and found the Maxwell case either completely uncovered on the front pages, opinion-only coverage, coverage of only this particular Twitter story, tabloid nonsense or coverage buried so far down the page in a sidebar it may as well not be there.
That seems pretty poor to me for such a high profile case.
You can pay money for followers. You don't need the means of a nation state or shadowy cabal. I'm right there with you on the Maxwell/Epstein story being far more significant though.
But an analogy is, if you have a legitimate criticism of the security state/"deep state" (a phrase I use and have no aversion to), it's not useful to buy into Qanon nonsense just because they criticize some of the same people. I know nothing directly about "patriot one" so I'm not saying it's Qanon level nonsense, but I'll defer to TrueAnon that it was probably counter-productive as a source. And making that judgment doesn't put anyone in league with the devil.
Just follow better informed and more scrupulous sources. TrueAnon are flippant and mischievous in ways that diminish them slightly, but on the whole, they're excellent. And they're at the trial every day.
I care deeply about the hacker news community, but engaging a conspiracy theorist on a standard discussion is destructive and dangerous to the overall community because such a conversation is a grounds to express more "facts" and reach a broader market. My response quickly points out the connection to existing dangerous communities and reinforces our reality as people casually browsing an internet forum and preempts further discussion and replies of ("I'm just saying")
Since you care deeply about the HN community, you should refrain from posting low-quality comments and breaking the site guidelines. As they point out, the way to deal with egregious comments is to not reply, to downvote/flag, and possibly email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can take a look. Otherwise we just end up in a tedious, offtopic spiral.
The discussion here focused on a single spam account being banned from Twitter, flagging comments and suspecting accounts promoting conspiracy theories validates that disgusting worldview (that big tech has a nefarious connection to underaged trafficking). But as the other comment said I do appreciate your civility. I would like to point out this tedious off topic spiral has the benefit of refusing the engage the dangerous ideas we were originally responding too, and instead pivoting the topic.
Ok, but the cost of tedious downward spirals greatly exceeds the benefit. Much better is not to feed them. We all need to just accept wrongness on the internet as a cost of doing internet on the internet. Fighting it amplifies it.
I think that's the fundamental disagreement. I think fighting it through dressing down is most effective. Conspiracy theories thrive on politeness, and masking harmful leaps of faith as innocent conversation. Mockery quickly points out the inherent bad faith of the premise. I don't think open platforms have to cater to such extremism.
HN is one kind of site (the kind where that's not ok) and not the other. I get that not everyone agrees with the guidelines or would design a community to be this way, and that's fine—there's room for many different kinds of community, including many that haven't been created yet. We're going to enforce the rules of this one, though.
That's a valid perspective and I find this community to be a place of interesting content and discussion the majority of the time. Obviously my comment was flagged, and looking at the original parent I replies reveals a vast array of discussion circling around dangerous speculation and paranoia, so whatever goals I aimed to accomplish failed.
Oh well, it's ultimately just the internet, I have to believe people are good enough not to become radicalized. Worrying about these issues is more likely to get me banned then to generate anything productive.
it is in fact very easy to not fully believe conspiracy theories, those who do go all in with those are not the primary demographic that enjoys thinking about conspiracy theories. It is primarily an activity practiced by people who are capable of entertaining wild ideas without believing them as truth, aka skeptics. I never understood the massive public stigma around being able to have a wild imagination but stay grounded regardless.
Nobody prominent is involved. This case is so larded with misplaced expectations. We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may be tangentially implicated and no reason to think Maxwell has any compromising information if they were. And even if both those assumptions are true there's no reason they'd be pertinent to her trial. Her trial which is happening likely because the prosecutor couldn't force a plea.
I don't know how you operate, but when I hear that the royal family is implicated, I immediately start to wonder who else is involved and not dismiss the case all together.
Again. Zero proof. Think about all the dots to connect for it to be a murder and how few for it to be a suicide. He had absolutely every reason to be suicidal and the evidence says it's very likely. For it to be murder we have to assumed a giant chain of events for which we have proof of none.
* Very powerful people procured his services for something illegal <- Maybe, no proof
* Epstein had incriminating evidence on those powerful people proving their illegal activities <- Maybe, no proof, requires above unproven point to be true
* Powerful people knew what evidence he had, believed he would leverage it to reduce his punishment <- Maybe, no proof, requires all above unproven points to be true
* Powerful people hired ninjas to invade the detention center, evade all the cameras (all but one camera was working and recorded the approaches to his cell), murder Epstein to make it look exactly like a suicide, leave no traces, no witnesses <- Maybe, getting pretty ludicrous by now
You just added another several levels of speculation. Could the CIA pull off an Op like this? Maybe. Have they ever assassinated an American citizen on American soil? Not that we know of. Would they take orders from a president looking to cover up his involvement in sex trafficking and obey without question and leak no details? No. That's pure fantasy.
Not in the US. The US audience doesn't really care about the UK royal family.
And in the UK, the media is constrained by stronger libel laws such that they'll sit on their haunches in terms of reporting on things in the case until they are considered factual enough to withstand a UK libel suit. Allegations thrown about in a foreign court of law don't meet that bar.
We don't know if there are prominent people involved in every case in every courtroom in the world. Maybe Bill Clinton has been stalking Bushwick stealing bikes for the last 5 years. Probably not though. Meanwhile the most recent ex-president is directly implicated in trying to upend democracy and lying about deliberately spreading covid at the White House.
Okay, then there is no reason to ban this twitter user at all, because there are plenty of ways to follow this trial and have the public decide for themselves what they think.
you know, one surefire way to signal to apple that deployment of such technology is detrimental to their bottom line is to just not buy apple products anymore.
totally against this CSAM thing but totally not going to public protest when someone could EASILY twist this to "they wanted the right to keep child porn on their phones without apple knowing about it"
Have an upvote. flatiron is describing a perpetual and insidious issue with activism: many people believe that speaking out on a controversial issue will mean they will be tied to the worst extremes that could follow from the opinions they express. This fear silences them.
This problem is especially prominent in the topic of privacy, which has been made to have a waft of wrongdoing associated with it ("nothing to hide").
The easiest example I've heard is kinda gross and rude, but effective.
"You take a crap with the door closed, not because I don't know what you're doing in there, but because you don't want to share the experience with me."
That pretty much sums up everything you need to know about privacy. You don't have to hide anything in order for it to be important.
Not a bad example, but some would argue that it wouldn't really make any difference if such things were not private—that it's more a matter of habit than any actual advantage. In nature you would want to know that you're alone during that time because it renders you relatively defenseless, physically, but that's not quite as much of an issue in modern society. As such, I prefer to point to situations where privacy remains a practical matter of self-defense: you don't share detailed financial data or your most intimate emotions with the world because there are people who can use that information to manipulate you or otherwise take advantage, e.g. through social engineering. You're not doing anything wrong—I'm not talking about potential blackmail material here—but knowing how much you earn and where you shop and what you buy and how you feel and what topics are likely to provoke an emotional response from you can give someone a great deal of leverage over you, often without you even realizing that you're being manipulated. Advertising is one obvious example of this, but not the only one. Being too open about your private life makes you vulnerable.
As someone said earlier, it punts the argument to how many flaws the scanning process has, instead of the fact that there's even a process to begin with.
They are also describing an issue, which like pretty much the entirety of this Apple fiasco, is completely fictional.
Most of this outrage is about situations people are imagining, situations which often have only the most tenuous of relationships with the actual reality of what is happening.
Sorry you're being downvoted. I'd much rather have a conversation, in which I would point out that literally all bad things that happen are "completely fictional" until they actually happen. Imagining how bad things are likely to occur and working to prevent them is great, join us!
The thing is, at some point you cross the border from "working to prevent bad things that might happen" to the equivalent of "making up a guy to get mad at".
And when it comes to Apple especially, most of the discourse tend to go deep, deep into the latter.
I would be more inclined to believe that the /g/ board (the board implicated) did what was accused if what happened was that he did something far more grave like saying he has an iphone that he absolutely loves and loves using MacOS.
That's a solid joke, but I wonder, does that actually significantly tweak your priors in favor of this being untrue? All of these different boards have their own bizarro codes of honor, so I wouldn't be surprised.
That's rather embarrassing for the Pinephone project, maybe you should file a bug report?
Edit: In the original tweet[0] you said it didn't crash?? Be sure to include the timeline of events and plenty of details in the bug report ok
