Agreed, I hope the moderators here editorialize this headline to try and spur more neutral discussion. It's worth waiting to see what the outcomes of this would be.
The moderation here typically leans to whatever generates the most curious discussion, rather than sticking with inflammatory titles, even if it's what the author intends. In some way, I trust HN to become the "editors" of the internet in a sense, as they have everyone's best interest in heart of course.
As the legendary PG once wrote: "What are you excessively curious about — curious to a degree that would bore most other people? That's what you're looking for"
It also doesn't help that the quality of ground beef in the US is much poorer than other countries, so those who may regularly eat rare ground beef internationally would experience a level of shock if eating it in the US.
A sibling comment mentions that playing devils advocate is strongly encouraged on this site, so I want to raise a question: what if a person does not want to establish their family relationship for whatever reason?
In what way are US vehicles inferior? I've been told from many in the country that Americans make the hardiest, most rugged vehicles in the world, and everybody is clambering to get them.
I think the problem is that a lot of soil here in the US isn't up to the quality of other countries. It may be tastier and healthier to eat imported tomatoes than ones that we even grow ourselves.
That's interesting, every single person I know in Europe that is a meat lover is opposed to some Texas BBQ and against large portion American-style steaks in general, where the quality of US meat is perceived quite poorly.
It's not so obvious. Taking my parent comment literally (as he said "the other way around"), one can assume that ChatGPT the platform itself would pay Terrence, rather than OpenAI.
The thing is, this forum often tells us that the government is not allowed to do that, it's against the law. So I'm curious why they did, and how they were able to?
Do you happen to have any evidence of this? I've spoken to a few people in mid-west US and they are strongly opposed to any surveillance of their communities of any kind.
Elon has mentioned before that he intends to place AI-powered factories in space that will manufacture and install new chips, while recycling the older ones. He says it's going to be fully self-sufficient.
I don't know if I'd call the pedantry silly and unnecessary. This forum is one of the few left where brilliant minds are able to discuss openly, with both accuracy and precision, about topics both narrow and wide. Being able to correctly state truths and falsehoods about any subject without fear of needing to subject to social guidelines on communication is a strength of this forum.
I think this is a salient point people are missing. This incredible freedom is equal on both sides, just as how companies are able to spread that risk around with multiple employees, it is common these days to have multiple jobs just in case of a layoff or other notable event where your job is lost.
I struggle sometimes to accept this. This site has been fostering great, curious discussion thanks to everyone diligently following the posting guidelines. As such, if everyone was discussing curiously, how could one simply parrot propaganda? It's unfathomable, and worse, goes against the commenting guidelines.
Good faith isn't enough. I just reread some tweets, and there were multiple people who in completely good faith (from their point of view) were protecting their community by claiming everybody who took a vaccine would be dead by June 2026.
I understand completely. I have colleagues who have been denied promotions and bonuses due to their way of communicating, which was indeed pointing out esoteric and nuanced ways that their colleagues are wrong. There was a specific scenario were someone held a slightly incoherent opinion, yet somehow it was "wrong" to correct that opinion for the rest of the meeting.
In some ways, I feel like everyone should start by reading the HN guidelines as a way to structure their communication around.