coderdude

Seriously old memes. At least we don't still have to deal with the cringe worthy "M$".

Microsoft is amazing. Top notch work across the board. Not all of their initiatives are aligned with hacker ideology but they are hands down developer friendly. Ballmer always made that important to know. I personally have the utmost faith in them. Their development tools are unequaled.

It's a good show (he's funny and you learn stuff) but it's way too preachy. He gets just a little too excited about things that are basically impossible for anyone to get excited about. Clearly pandering to the young, left crowd. I'm sure it makes some people feel very warm at night but it gives me a bad taste in my mouth after binge watching.

> It sounds like you're saying something revolutionary happened here, or should have happened here, but hasn't and won't ever

I think it won't happen because HN (like many or most communities) seems to be vulnerable to, for lack of a better term, "groupthink." Like when an article about a specific topic pops up and seemingly the entire community has already formed a specific opinion about it. It's nearly impossible to make a dent in it and most of us learn pretty quickly that the opposing view will be attacked, sometimes viciously.

> because of mismanagement and poor quality discussion

Not at all. My reference to the CIA paper (I'm guessing that's where the management aspect comes in) was an illustration of the types of things the intelligence community spends time fleshing out. I don't think HN particularly suffers from poor quality discussion or mismanagement.

> Also, perhaps more importantly, why? What motive could "they"(the CIA, I guess?) have for diluting the conversations here?

There are few large places where the influential tech community gathers to discuss topics of importance. In the same way that control over public opinion (propaganda) is beneficial to motivated parties, it seems reasonable to me that control over our opinions can be used.

Thanks. I had a hard time finding that before my post.

This reminds me of a recently declassified document from the CIA that discusses how to undermine organizations by being poor managers, employees, etc. It's difficult to search HN for this at this point because A) we always discuss that agency and B) our best search option gives us the option of the past month or the past year. Maybe someone has this bookmarked or downloaded. It came in PDF form.

This is happening to us here. I think they're doing it by using the "No true Scotsman" informal fallacy and other methods. We'd blame the hundreds of thousands of new users. I believe they've found a way to unwind this community. Nothing revolutionary will ever come from here (how could it?). I think the community has been compromised and that we won't find out until 50 years from now when most of us are dead.

This is how I feel after years of watching the community. I have no stake in it either way. I'm open to opposing views.

Thanks vermontdevil for finding the link. If in 1944 they had a field manual for subverting physical organizations, it's foolhardy to believe they don't have a field manual for subverting "online communities with up and down arrows."

My bad. Not the comment that I'm most proud of.

This is a big deal because "the system" has shown a lot of hate toward things that oppose it. Even Stephen Colbert (our would-be go-to celebrity) has clearly aligned with the propaganda. The system is about to have themselves voted against and so now it will align with the new power.

As someone else with no prior knowledge, I'll take a crack at it.

Here's the paper: http://shagunsodhani.in/locis/docs/paper/paper.pdf

> Spatial association rule mining is a useful tool for discovering correlations and interesting relationships among spatial objects. Co-locations, or sets of spatial events which are frequently observed together in close proximity, are particularly useful for discovering their spatial dependencies.

> Boolean spatial events (features) describe the presence of spatial events at different locations in geographic space. Examples of such data include disease outbreaks, crime incidents, traffic accidents, mobile service types, climate events, plants and species in ecology, and so on.

See figure 1 in the paper for a visual. It sounds like the purpose of this is to find sets of events that occur close to each other, physically, using MapReduce over large amounts of data.

It has something to do with stories being given a second chance at attention on the front page. I'm guessing a mod decided that it was good content but that it didn't receive enough attention. A side effect of this that I've seen is comments having their timestamp altered as though we've gone back in time to when the article was submitted.

I can think of a few good reasons:

- Microsoft benefits when Google's mobile platform is hurt.

- Microsoft has many APIs so why the heck would they want to overturn a decision that puts them in a position of power?

If those weren't enough, Google has poached Microsoft talent for years. Maybe there are people at Microsoft who just don't like Google and will work to screw them over. Most likely though it's more to do with the two reasons I listed above.

Plus, a little too much emotion in your post. Hard to believe you can feel any emotion about this whatsoever let along being basically pissed off. This is super boring tech news.

Ah. I see what was going on then. That's bitten me in the past too.

This is a distracting tangent. Just so it's clear, I wasn't responding negatively to you. You didn't invent what I'm railing against and as far as I was concerned you were only the messenger of another community's discussion. I don't think you said anything that needed to be edited down.

The article does a great job of it, too:

"Caveat: The study was relatively small and involved children who were still learning how to read."

Your only take-away isn't supposed to be some editor's choice for the title.

Added after original post:

This is why I don't like the "tl;dr" meme. If people would take more time to absorb the information related to topics we care about, there wouldn't be this desire to have a random person on the net distill that knowledge into something you can consume in 20 seconds or less. It's like getting all of your political opinions from Comedy Central. You're willingly getting your information through yet-another filter, but this filter is presented as unbiased.

Edit: parent comment ninja'd what I was responding to, now this looks super off topic.

Sick. Hope I helped cuz I'm down for the cause

I wouldn't think twice if you had in your profile something like "I work for SpaceX." Good to know, but not the source of your opinions. Your account is young enough that you can gain all that back without the boss in your name. This isn't my first account.

Plus, and I can't speak for everyone, but as a former would-be astronaut, this kind of stuff is tops to me. Info from insiders is always welcome. Consider starting a blog.

Thanks for taking my opinions into account.

That's the response I was hoping for. My only critique then is please register a personal account. You can't have a name like SpaceX_Tech and not expect us to take everything you say as something that they would endorse. I'd be appalled if a programmer I employed created an account under my company name, for use of expressing every personal opinion under the sun. I hope you understand the position I'm coming from and that others may be thinking the same thing when reading your comments.

Ps: keep up the good work

Do you work for SpaceX? You have it in your username and comment like you're part of the company, but also spend your time discussing the merits of the NRA. Do you represent SpaceX or are you just super enthusiastic about them? It's not easy to tell.

Alright, may the most meta intelligence service win. Inter-? Count me aboard.

You're basically trying to reason with a troll comment about pirating. They don't need 5 billion reasons. There's only one. It's free.

I fought tooth and nail against homework to my own detriment. Those counselors just did not know what to do with me.

>Is There a Bright Future if You Don’t Do Any Homework?

Heh. Nah, not really.

This looks promising and different. I like that they say up front that some staff opinions will align with the views of the organization and some will not. I'm sure someone will come up with something shallow to complain about but this is actually cool.

I used to work for a company that sold furniture online. We were good but the majority of our business came from the beloved serps. It hurt us dramatically when our boilerplate product copy, sent to all online retailers, counted against us as though we were spam. It was beyond my capabilities to develop a method to automatically reword the copy. Surprise, surprise. We started to pay people to write unique descriptions for the products that everyone on the net was carrying. Then affiliates would pick it up and screw us again. That's it. No happy ending. Company was bought by our most underhanded competitor. Now I do my own thing.

I should note we rode the Google gravy train for about 8 years before that happened. After "panda" the company couldnt afford to buy every bit of its traffic. I doubt that's what Google was shooting for with that update but it really changed some lives.

Ah good. I was wondering if I handled that right. I wasn't prepared to add a comment after vouching so that caught me off guard. Took it as my time to explain why.

To be clear, in the future I don't explain the vouching. Which I understand.

Can you explain to me why politicians and the media would want me to believe that politicians and the media are not real people? It seems like such a matter-of-fact thing to say to me but flies in the face of rationale. I'm open to your interpretation of what we're being spoon-fed.

The actual discussions are more nuanced. What you have determined from what you've read or heard does not align with what I have determined. Having listened to the conversation that causes the reaction "Trump is for nuclear proliferation," I don't think that's what he was describing. What he said was that North Korea has nuclear weapons but no carrier system. That they will have a carrier system soon. That he'd rather Japan be able to defend themselves equally against NK if the need should arise, and not for the United States to be in charge of keeping Japan safe. That is what he said.

You present a compelling argument. It may just be that charisma is alive and well in Trump. I can't answer those questions. I grapple with them, myself.

I think it goes both ways with the two candidates. I believe that Trump is also playing the political game here. I've seen examples of him saying things that are contradictory to things he has said in the past[^]. He does have skeletons, as every normal person does. I don't think he would want to go after Clinton on that basis.

[^] Much of this information is shown by shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a show that I love to watch but have grown sick of the super obvious political slant it has. It was cool when Jon Stewart was doing it 10 years ago. That was fresh. It was funny when Colbert parodied it later but now that each of these three figures are now so obviously and unapologetically slanted toward a particular political view, it's become unappealing to me. So while I take in the facts as I can, I do have to remember that in each direction I face, I'm consuming propaganda.

Edit: I hate you, markdown syntax.

I vouched for this because, barring any other knowledge of your account(s) prior to the comments made on this account, I have not seen anything that, to me, merits the suppression.

I don't consider him charismatic but I am excited to see him win the election. The reason his character appeals to me becomes clear when he is being interviewed in the media. They seem so fake, polished and conditioned. He does not. Juxtaposed to members of the media, to me, he seems like myself.

I've always had the impression that the people I see in the media are completely fake and do not represent actual human beings. Other presidential candidates are just like those people to me. They won't say anything that will upset you. They go with whatever the current flow is. Whatever narrative the nation is supposed to follow at the moment. It's the same way I feel when reading comments on the net, including on HN. The character Trump represents appeals to me because he seems to see through the kind of bullshit that I feel like I'm seeing through as well.

"It's about awareness" is what you're told when you ask what view-through purchases are. You can dump truck loads of money at awareness.