garbagetime

> it is definitely not unbiased.

Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

Here's an article by Gumroad's founder that covers how many employees Gumroad has: https://sahillavingia.com/work

25 people work at Gumroad, but none full time.

Nevermind

How exactly does one go about signing this pledge?

Nope. His work on the questions of the nature of thought, language, and mind is both extremely influential & deeply philosophical.

Some of his work on linguistics you can argue is not philosophy. Some I think clearly is.

I would say his work in linguistics is philosophy.

Simple explanation, I'm afraid: I was dumb.

There are no exceptions (...at least, none that I'm currently aware of). Dang's "missing comment" actually is on his page, just not where I was looking.

The comment was new, but it was a descendant of one of dang's older comments, so it appears further back in his profile than where I looked.

Sure.

Here's a recent comment from the user dang: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271566

And here's his page, where the comment can't be seen: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang

---

And here's another comment, also from dang, where he talked about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264605

> this how HN's software works these days. We didn't do anything specific to the thread; it's just that users flagged the root comment.

I don't think that works.

It will show the dead, but not their children.

It's not apparent to me.

HN users tend to think similarly to each other and are often wrong.

Have you read the papers? Might be they're good, but rejected for dumb/annoying reasons.

Exagerating about these things is a personality trait, not a mental illness.

Maybe the papers are totally crank, but as I said, not immediately apparant

It's not apparant to me. Cancer claim seemed like a conditional one.

I acknowledge that the word 'race' is used in many ways. But in the context of HBD we can probably limit ourselves to those definitions rooted in biology.

I did not invent the definition I gave, though it is written by me. I suppose it is closely related to the standard definition of race in the sense we are discussing it.

Here's the first definition of the word "race" in the 1979 New Zealand English dictionary I have on my desk in front of me:

>a group of people having or supposed to have common ancestors and with similar physical characteristics

Which is close enough to my definition, albeit more general and less descriptive.

You may find that definitions similar to this are rarer these days. This is because there was a massive push in the late 20th century against race being a biological reality. A social understanding of race was promoted in its place. This push was based on such wild and undeniably false claims such as:

> data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world

These claims have evolved since then, but as far as I can discern are roughly equally (though less obviously) false.

P.S. I'm not trying to retain your interest. If you don't find the subject matter of our conversation interesting enough of itself (as I do), then I don't want you to go out of your way to continue this conversation.

If you asked them to list races, they might give those out of some habit, though I doubt anybody seriously considers those to be races.

I mean, do people really think that the Han Chinese, the Persians, the Hindu Indians, etc., are all of the same race? No. People are aware there are various African, European, Asian, etc. races.

Why do you want a source? Just think about it. How could race be anything else?

Yes, many humans cannot be sorted into any one race. They have ancestors of various races.

A race: a people who have been largely or totally isolated (in terms of procreation) from other peoples for a very great number of generations.

I doubt that any serious racists consider that there is some single "black race".

Nonetheless, as far as I can tell, you're presenting the case that there are significant genetic differences between black races and other races, in which case: why can't some of those alleles code for intelligence, and why can't that result in a difference in average intelligence?

I'm not suggesting that the term "HBD" has other more benign uses. I'm suggesting that it refers to a body of thought in which various claims are made, and that you are focused on one of those claims, whereas our ancestor comment was focused on another.

> Black people as a whole have more genetic diversity within themselves than every other race.

Would you mind explaining this in more detail?

It seems to me that you just have a more specific issue with HBD than jasonhansel has.

jasonhansel takes issue with the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence

You take issue with another, related, one of HBD's ideas: a specific ranking of races by intelligence that it advances.

I was only supposing that the first claim seems likely to be true, so I'm not sure that there has been any substantive disagreement between us on those two matters.

The reason akomtu and I adressed the "mott" is that it was the claim ascribed to HBD:

> HBD (or "human biodiversity") is a euphemism for the view that there are genetic racial differences in intelligence.

and the "bailey" can be split into two parts: one follows from the mott, that races could be ranking according to intelligence. There's obviously no MaB fallacy here. The second part is the specific racial ranking you provided. But no one had mentioned that until you got here, so it's clear that there's no intentional MaB fallacy going on.

No one was trying to affirm any specific ranking of races by intelligence. That's a closely related, but very different kind of question (a very empirical type question).

Are you saying that the simple fact that many people have come to the same conclusion disconfirms that conclusion?

I just do it the old-fashioned way: memorisation.

They only survived 6 days.

If a person can read he should be able to see that PG's Tweet broke the rule. There's nothing too complicated about it - the rule clearly stated that X was not allowed, and PG did X.

You seem like someone who can read, so the charatable interpretation is that there is some kind of mental block that's stopping you from seeing the clear truth.

If you want to stop talking, OK. Either way I hope you have a merry Christmas.

Using a hyperlink is not neccessary to break the rule. Naming a Mastodon account (or any account) is not neccesary to break the rule. Breaking the rule in the same way that it was broken in the examples given is not neccesary to break the rule. Elon stated in various places that attempts such as PG's to break the rule (which is about the promotion of prohibited social media) without getting banned would not be tolerated. In one instance he referred to such an attempt as 'ban evasion' (this was in a Twitter space, I'll find it when I'm back at my PC).

Elon's phrase "casual sharing" is not inclusive of PG apparently denouncing Twitter and promoting his Mastodon account in its place. PG's Tweet was anything but casual. If PG had linked to some post he found interesting that happened to be on Mastadon, that might qualify as casual.

I never claimed that my use of the phrase 'ban evasion' matched the use in the Twitter user agreement. HN and I are in agreement on that count (as I have stated elsewhere in this thread).

Frankly, you have bad reading comprehension, most likely due to motivated interpretation i.e. you tend to see what you want to be there rather than what is actually there.

The situation is very simple:

1. PG broke Twitter's rules

2. Twitter suspended PG's account

3. Twitter changed its rules

4. Twitter reinstated PG's account

Whether you like my use of the words 'ban' and 'evasion' ultimately isn't super relevant to my point.

I'm not 'defending' Twitter's actions. I'm interpreting reality. I'm discussing a matter of fact. The question is: did PG break Twitter's rules? The answer: yes. You may dislike Elon Musk. You may dislike me. You may dislike Twitter's (now deleted) rule. But this basic factual claim will remain correct.

HN has an infinite track record of being very wrong. I take my comment being flagged as a much greater endorsement of it than had it been "upvoted". You can find countless HN users in this thread getting the basic facts of the situation wrong (yourself included). And it's not just that these are ignorant people searching for the truth. These are not enquiring minds. Any amount of sincere reflection would have revealed the truth. These are people actively claiming clear untruths as the truth. Why should I care about being downvoted, if these are the people downvoting me? Any time I am upvoted I should take it only as a sign to take a step back and think: "have I made some kind of blatant logical error?"

Nah. Maybe if PG was banned for ban evasion there would be an equivilance. But PG was banned for something else.

If you read carefully the thread you linked you will see that Elon affirmed the following statement:

> You just can’t create or turn (my emphasis) your account into a free advertising unit for one of the listed competing platforms.

This is what PG was doing (you can argue that he actually wasn't - but he was according to Elon's standards, which is the important sense). One Tweet buried deep in a thread that could possibly be misinterpreted to support your position is not convincing.

I am not "inventing a new definition of ban evasion". I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way.

The Tweet very clearly violated the rule.

> The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO initially interpreted them

Where did Elon interpret the rule as being that users can advertise prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms as long as they don't provide a hyperlink?

> Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules.

Why are you talking about my expectations? What I am doing here is pointing out that PG clearly violated Twitter's rules. My claim is a descriptive claim, not a normative one.