HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

CocaKoala

1,084 karma · joined February 19, 2014

submissionscomments
CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
> Why exactly can't you explain that you're male?

What would an explanation provide that saying "I prefer masculine pronouns" doesn't?

> If they do it because they don't even believe you're the gender that you claim to be, then a correction is a terrible tool for changing their mind. Both sides will only dig their heels in and come away feeling hostility for each other.

I agree with you! That's why I think the social standard should be "Everybody chooses their own pronouns", because then there's no external interpretation needed and it doesn't matter whether or not somebody believes something, the only key thing is whatever the stated preference is.

CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
As somebody who has misgendered people on accident and been accidentally misgendered, I've never seen anything other than gentle, polite correction when it occurs.

When it occurs more than once, it starts to move from the realm of "accident" to "deliberate", and I can easily imagine that in such a scenario, the corrections would become less gentle and less polite. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable, nor does it strike me as a free speech issue.

But notably, you're giving rather more power to free speech than is usually ascribed, which I find interesting. You're asserting that your right to free speech trumps my right to self-definition; if you want to call me a woman, you have that right under free speech, and if I want to correct you by explaining that actually, I'm a cisgender male, I can't do that because you have the right to free speech.

This seems patently ridiculous to me, and hopefully it does to you too. I don't see a way to reconcile your desire for free speech with my desire for bodily autonomy and self-definition. Can you clarify how allowing other people to choose the proper referential terms for me doesn't erase my ability to define who I am?

CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
So if I say that I'm a man and somebody doesn't believe me, what can I do? Wouldn't it be easier to say "An individual is the ultimate authority on what pronouns are correct, and their word should be taken over that of everybody else because everybody else might be mistaken"?

Specifically, you've stated that people _don't have the right_ to choose their pronouns, and that's where you lose me. What does it mean to "choose" a pronoun, and what harm does allowing people to confidently assert "This is how I am properly referred to, all other ways are incorrect"?

CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Wait, have I mischaracterized your argument in any way? Because I'm honestly not trying to do that, I'm just trying to follow your position to its logical conclusion.

If somebody says about me, "She's been really busy this week" and I overhear them and say "Excuse me, I prefer masculine pronouns", somebody following your line of argument can respond by saying "Sorry, but a pronoun is a syntactic construction, you don't have the right to choose which one refers to you."

What about that doesn't follow from your position here?

CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
So if somebody _mistakes_ me for a girl, I can correct them, but if they deliberately decide to refer to me as "she", I have to accept it?
CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
> This is way different than the transgender case in that no deep-seated & conflicting beliefs came into play.

What deep-seated and conflicting beliefs come into play here? This doesn't need to be about transgender issues, that's just where it comes up a lot (for obvious reasons).

If I get to say that I want people to use masculine pronouns and correct people when they refer to me as "her" or "she", that seems reasonable to me. And it sounds like it seems reasonable to you too.

That seems like a solid case for saying "people should get to choose their pronouns". I choose masculine ones. Somebody else might make a different choice, but it doesn't become "special treatment" just because they're making a different choice.

CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Well, you said that people don't get to choose the pronouns that other people refer to them by, and the reason that people can do this with names but not pronouns is because pronouns are a syntactic construct.

Thus, when people misgendered me as a child because they mistook me for a girl, it seems to follow that you're asserting that I shouldn't have corrected them because a pronoun is a syntactic construct and I don't get to choose what pronoun they use to refer to me by, regardless of how I personally identify. I can correct them if they mispronounce my name, but not if they mistake me for a girl.

If that's not what you're saying, then I guess I don't understand your position.

CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
When I was younger, I had fairly long hair. I've always been kind of a scrawny person with a fairly neutral face, so if you didn't look closely it was pretty easy to mistake me for a girl.

If somebody mistook me for a girl and referred to me as "she" or "her", I would correct them. Are you saying that I didn't have the right to do that, because a pronoun is a syntactic construct?

CocaKoala··on Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
> I don't get to choose the pronouns that other people refer to me by, and neither does anyone else I know.

Why not? People do similar things all the time.

If I introduced my friend Richard to you and he said "Please, call me Rich", would you say "Sorry buddy, no can do; Richard is your name, and that's what I have to call you"?

Why are pronouns so special compared to names?

CocaKoala··on After a year of MeToo, survey respondents have become more sceptical
The goal of "get an enthusiastic yes" is not to criminalize sex without explicit consent, but rather to normalize the idea that if you _don't_ have explicit consent, then you shouldn't have sex.
CocaKoala··on After a year of MeToo, survey respondents have become more sceptical
> Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring "explicit verbal consent"

Why not? When two people don't have the presumption of consent, what's the harm in checking to make sure "hey, is this something you want to do?"

CocaKoala··on After a year of MeToo, survey respondents have become more sceptical
> just like you don't resolve robberies by "teaching criminals not to steal"

Do you tell banks that they shouldn't have kept so much money in the vaults if they didn't want to get robbed?

CocaKoala··on After a year of MeToo, survey respondents have become more sceptical
> after each incident the most you can do to prevent another one, is to analyse what more you could have done, or you could do in the future.

Sure. Which is why, in addition to telling people to wear seat belts, we also make people take Driver's Ed so that they can demonstrate that they at least nominally know the rules of the road and can drive safely.

What's the Driver's Ed version of teaching people not to commit rape or sexual assault? When I was in college, there was a freshman orientation activity that talked about consent, but it wasn't mandatory, not all colleges have it, and not all people go to college. Who's teaching high schoolers about the nuances of consent and what it means to sexually assault somebody?

CocaKoala··on After a year of MeToo, survey respondents have become more sceptical
You can (and I suspect people DO) tell women "don't be alone with people you don't trust". That's not in contention.

Victim blaming is when you say "Well, if you hadn't been alone with somebody you didn't trust, you wouldn't have been raped"; it's technically a true statement, but it puts the onus on the woman (why was she alone with somebody she didn't trust, something she's been told not to do?) as opposed to on the rapist (why did they rape somebody?).

While it's valuable to give people tools to avoid situations that might go bad, it's still important to recognize that the person at fault for the situation going bad is the person who commits the crime, and not the person who ended up in a bad situation.

CocaKoala··on After a year of MeToo, survey respondents have become more sceptical
Here's the way I've always thought about it.

If you're walking in a bad neighborhood at 3am and you get mugged, should you have chosen your path more wisely? Maybe. But would anybody say that _because you chose to walk in a bad neighborhood and you got mugged, the mugger isn't at fault and shouldn't be prosecuted for the crime they committed_?

No, probably not. Mugging is a crime, and just because you put yourself in a situation where you're more likely to get mugged doesn't make it less of one.

Why does the same not apply to sexual assault?

CocaKoala··on What you can't say (2004)
Some women, although the number is certainly an ongoing debate, make false rape accusations, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "social justice groupings", but "sometimes people lie" still isn't mutually exclusive with "women, on the whole, are and historically have been a marginalized population". You keep on saying things like they're some sort of gotcha, but you never actually argue against the point you're trying to argue against; you just constantly bring up other points and try to act smug.
CocaKoala··on What you can't say (2004)
And, just so that I make this clear: you've tried to imply several times with your argument that women aren't marginalized, but you've done this purely by bringing up other groups that are marginalized (Women couldn't vote? neither could I, until I immigrated. Women are marginalized? What about the poor black men who were lynched on nothing but the word of a white woman?) and at no point have you addressed the fact that marginalization isn't a binary thing; there's more than two levels of marginalization, and just because some other group was _also_ marginalized, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen to women too.

You've neatly sidestepped addressing this on the times that I've brought it up, which is why I keep on harping on this point. There are two possible reasons you're doing this: one is that you legitimately didn't realize that marginalization has multiple levels, in which case maybe you should take a moment to think about the history of the world and the various forms oppression has taken, and the other is that you're deliberately making a bad-faith argument. I'd certainly hope you're not arguing in bad faith, because that would be incredibly rude, but I wanted to make sure I called out what you were doing (and failing to do) to make it clear to anybody who wanders by and reads the argument.

CocaKoala··on What you can't say (2004)
I'm still confused. Are you saying that "Black Men" and "Men" are the same group?
CocaKoala··on What you can't say (2004)
So are you saying that the two sides of the "Me Too" movement are "All Women" and "Black Men"?

Because otherwise, I still don't understand your point.

CocaKoala··on What you can't say (2004)
"Women are and have been marginalized in the US" is not a statement which is mutually exclusive with "Black people are and have been marginalized in the US", so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
CocaKoala··on The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth
> I can't imagine students paying $4 a couple times a day for a Starbucks coffee when they're paying with borrowed money. This is just grossly irresponsible.

When I was in college, undergrads would have to purchase a meal plan, which could take a few forms. You could have a designated number of meals, and buy things from the cafeteria that qualified as a meal (one entree, one side, one drink), or you could have balance of food dollars which could only be spent on campus. There were also plans that involved a mix of those two types of currencies, but the better plan was to get the food dollars (which were called Declining, for whatever reason), and use that to buy food, because that gave you more flexibility. You could spend Declining at the cafeterias, at the corner store, at the Starbucks on campus, it was literally cash that you could only spend on the campus and only on food.

At the end of the academic year, though, your balance gets zeroed out, no matter how much you have left in Declining. So every year starting in April or so, people would start buying stuff in bulk from the corner store or from the Starbucks just to get something out of the money that was going to evaporate. My senior year, my girlfriend spent like two hundred dollars on coffee beans and gave them to people as presents, because what else was she going to do? I myself spent like sixty bucks on fifteen pounds of sour patch kids.

No reason to not buy that four dollar coffee every day when the money's already spent and you're not getting it back.

CocaKoala··on 'Siri I'm getting pulled over': New shortcut can automatically record the police
Sure, but being arrested by the cops isn't confidential communication.
CocaKoala··on 'Siri I'm getting pulled over': New shortcut can automatically record the police
Police DO wear body cameras! For example, there was a shooting in Albuquerque, with five police officers present, and all five officers were wearing cameras.

Unfortunately, all five cameras malfunctioned at exactly the same time and none of them captured footage of the shooting [1].

What a crazy, unlikely circumstance.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180624/18081640105/anoth...

CocaKoala··on SEC Sues Musk and Seeks Ban for His Tweets on Go-Private Deal
Why is that uncomfortable? I don't think anybody takes issue with the idea that some engineers are great at being engineers but not great at being managers, and so it's important to have a career track for senior engineers to continue doing the engineering work that they're great at instead of forcing them into a role that's not fulfilling.

That idea shouldn't be more uncomfortable just because the engineer is a founder. It should be reasonable for a founding engineer to let somebody else come in and do the boring management work that a CEO has to perform while the engineer continues doing the work that got them to where they are.

CocaKoala··on Voting Machine Used in Half of U.S. Is Vulnerable to Attack, Report Finds
and what happens when the id expires or you change your address or you change your name or the id gets lost or destroyed?
CocaKoala··on Voting Machine Used in Half of U.S. Is Vulnerable to Attack, Report Finds
You can get an ID card that works as legal id but isn't a driver's license, but it still requires going to the DMV and burning at LEAST several hours, which isn't an option available to everybody.
CocaKoala··on Show HN: Variables War, a kid-friendly code playing-cards game
> What's the opposite of "ragequit"?

Assuming you're trying to invert the 'rage' part of rage quitting and not the 'quit' part (or even both), I think the sentiment you're angling to express is usually termed "mic drop"

CocaKoala··on Times Newer Roman, a sneaky font designed to make essays look longer
The goal behind "page count" as a metric is to give you an idea of how much depth you should be going into on whatever topic you're writing about.

If you're supposed to produce a twenty page paper and you've got 13 pages, you need more meat in the paper to fulfill expectations. Alternatively, if you're supposed to produce a three page summary and you've got seven pages, you're getting caught in the weeds somewhere and need to take a step back.

It's a bit easier to, at the start of the paper, make a judgement about what's expected in terms of depth when you're given a page count instead of a word count, because you know roughly how much information can fit on a page but perhaps not how many words that takes up.

CocaKoala··on The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
Why do you want OSI to weigh in? The license describes itself as not Open Source, according to https://commonsclause.com/

> It this “Open Source”? [sic]

> No, at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD. Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to “source-available”.

CocaKoala··on Bethesda blocks resale of used game
https://help.bethesda.net/app/answers/list/search/1/kw/warra...

There's no mention of a warranty on the Evil Within 2 support page

https://bethesda.net/en/search?q=warranty

And no mention of a warranty on their main website either.

The amazon store page says that for warranty information, you can contact the seller (which would be amazon, and presumably amazon's warranty) or that more information may be available on the manufacturer's website (and the above links demonstrate that it isn't).

So yeah, my question is "Does anybody know about the warranty, and if not, how is a warranty that you don't know about materially different from not having one?"

← PreviousPage 4 of 21Next →