daenz

Thanks for the detailed reply, but I disagree with almost every point that you made. You took the extreme version of "no privacy" with the "America's most stupid" example, so allow me to take the opposite extreme. Imagine every conversation and every form of public interaction going through real-time government censors to decide if it is appropriate. If it's not appropriate (for some subjective definition of 'appropriate'), you're arrested or fined for offense. Sounds dystopian right? I'd much prefer being followed around by a malicious film crew in public all day.

That's not difficult to comprehend at all. It sounds like you're not comprehending my point.

Why is being nude normal in some places, but not others? That suggests that a stigma exists in one but not the other, and so participating in one or the other is implicitly supporting that.

>And yes there is huge difference between swimming naked and in some swim shorts

I didn't say "swim shorts", I said underwear, which tend to be tight fitting and not baggy. And there really isn't a "huge difference."

Which cultures are we talking about?

What does hiking with a pack have to do with swimming in water

Yes. I've probably spent more time tanning at nude beaches than most people.

The phrase "rug pull" is almost cartoonishly evil. It implies waiting until the victims are feeling nice and secure, and then you rip everything out from under them as quickly as possible. The fact that the phrase has become so closely related to crypto activities is really telling.

Sorry but I just don't buy it. There's no functional difference between swimming in undergarments or swimming nude, so if you choose nude, it's because you don't think it should be stigmatized.

If you think it feels so much nicer, consider that it's because it's a mild rebellion against a social norm.

Your choice to swim nude in a public lake outweighing the choice to be more prudish is destigmatizing.

In the US, basically any public place (nude beaches included) is open for people to film. I believe there are some exceptions like public restrooms, where there exists a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

But yes, people are also free to complain to the person and make them feel uncomfortable for the scumbag behavior.

Assuming we're talking about the US, if you are in public, people absolutely are free to stare or film you.

You can enjoy the freedom of being nude on your own private property then. No need to add "in public" unless you are trying to a) destigmatize or b) be an exhibitionist

>But the damage was done. Afterwards, everyone was afraid of being filmed without consent again.

Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? I know you mentioned this was a "private lake" but it is unclear of if you mean legally private or de facto private. In case of the latter, even creepers have a right to be there and film.

I used to visit a nude beach and there was always some clothed weirdo with their phone out. They would get unfriendly looks by everyone though, and I think the ostracization kept them on the outskirts of the community.

I've worked at several startups, but my experience has been that I've been relatively siloed in my work. Maybe I wasn't taking advantage of the startup experience, but aside my limited view at standups, I didn't know how the sausage was made in different areas of the company. I couldn't see how it all fit together, because I had an incomplete picture.

I've had IRL conversations with almost fanatical climate change activists, and I believe they look at it this way: even if they're completely 100% wrong, nothing is lost by improving how we treat the environment.

This is a big deal! This adds a super power to communication, similar to how a photo is worth 1000 words. An inversion is worth 1000 diffusions!

You make a great point... we can't stop the decay, so the growth has to outpace it.

>once they figure out how to control potentially harmful generations

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this is an impossible and futile task? I don't have a solid grasp on what kind of censorship is possible with this technology, but the goal seems to be on par with making sure nobody says anything mean online. People are extremely creative and are going to find the prompts that generate the "harmful" images.

>and saw no reward for it

That doesn't necessarily follow. Good will towards developers goes a long way. It helps build reputations and encourages referrals.

Which countries don't have university acceptance rates? I looked at Denmark and Sweden, they still exclude people. Someone mentioned in Germany if you don't get accepted, you go on a waiting list.

Maybe create a default room for the HN crowd to join? I also had the same experience as OP... "nobody is here".

How could you even get into that business? It seems like something that only the university administration and the lenders can participate in.

I tried to verify the claim. At least for Sweden, their universities still have an acceptance rate, with the highest being 80%, and the next highest being 35%[0]. Denmark's highest acceptance rates are in the upper 70s, low 80s[1].

Yes the acceptance rates are relatively high, but the fact that they have an acceptance rates for their universities suggests that not everyone who wants to go to university can.

0. https://www.sabonews.org/universities-in-sweden-with-high-ac... 1. https://uscollegeinternational.com/universities-in-denmark-w...

The student loan forgiveness debate is such a mess. Here's just a sampling of the arguments I've seen, and I'm inclined to think there's some validity to all of them:

  * Loan forgiveness creates perverse incentives
  * If we can afford to forgive/bail-out X, then we can do student loans
  * This punishes everyone who was responsible with their loans
  * This is a huge relief to everyone with student loans
  * Why should everyone else have to pay for your bad choices
  * College should be free anyways, this is that, with extra steps

>Well it sounds like Facebook chose to self-censor after talking with the FBI. But they still had the legal right to not do so.

The optics around this interaction are extremely unethical. Whether or not there was any actual legal pressure is only half of the issue. The other half is the appearance of unethical behavior.

Oh, I understand now, thanks. So in theory, if Mary had had multiple children, it would have really messed up the idea of the Trinity (3)

I was thinking more along the lines of Vivarium (very mild spoilers, sorry!), but yes.

I'm not trying to put them on trial but...

The OP has no way of knowing if they would be a better parent, but yet they still very strongly think that they would be a better parent to a child that has 100% similar dna than 50% similar dna. How can you know this unless you are biased towards the idea of a clone? "I want a clone, more than anything" suggests there is bias.

I always understood the word "conceived" or "conception" to apply to the person being born, not the parent. Is this not accurate?