happytoexplain

The Japanese seem particularly adept at the concept of "vibe".

Aw, fuck.

If I may gingerly throw a stone within my glass house, your username checks out.

I think you might be letting a non-conventional communication/thinking style cloud your ability to communicate in the political space. If you say the we should ignore concentrated/special interest groups (which is normal - colloquially the term refers to nefarious groups with disproportionate power), but also that disabled people are a concentrated/special interest group (which is literally true, but not aligned with the colloquial definition), then you are saying we should ignore disabled people, which is not the same thing as treat with proportional weight. But I think you're not literally trying to say that.

Some of these are very humorous because of the cultural disconnect (as an American, I have never experienced somebody asking to put their seat back).

"An expert on a very niche subject" made me laugh out loud the hardest, because it's the one that's most "just a guy", and yet it's also exactly how it's described.

A lot of GxP environments had already ditched Postman because it auto-syncs your API schemas to their cloud, as well as values and secrets.

Since I don't think you're irrational, I assume it's probably just a semantic disagreement then. E.g. you're probably using the word to mean "unreasonable opposition to development from locals" while I use it to mean "any opposition to development from locals", rather than restricting the definition to petty things like "I don't want anything built near me that will cause my property value to go down no matter who it benefits".

But now that I think about it, I think either definition supports my criticism of your use of the term as a generic net for "you're wrong", like all the traditional one-worders in social/political arguments.

NIMBYism and NIMBY talking points aren't inherently wrong. There are just very high-profile instances of NIMBYism in the cultural headspace that are wrong, which results in things like "NIMBY talking point" being used as a standalone criticism despite being insufficient as one.

It might not feel striking if you put yourself outside your personal experiences/knowledge and read what you wrote in a vacuum, how a typical person would take it. People care a lot more about representation than they do about the perfection of that representation's demographic spread. People want both, of course (or at least people who tend to be on HN), but if you roll your eyes at some voices you disagree with and suggest tamping them down by removing things from their own political process (rather than e.g. focusing on getting more voices, rather than fewer, though it's a harder problem), despite there being a defensible point to be made about representativeness on some dimensions, even groups of people who are mostly smart/open are going to have a lot of folks who will not look past the offense of the suggestion.

Especially in times like this, where everybody is more rabid than ever to kill the voices of the others, and people seem less able than ever to imagine or respect experiences and perspectives outside their own mindspace of "this is how the everything should work".

Every system we come up with to apply justice to some instance we are familiar with has the potential to apply injustice to instances we are not familiar with. We have to make those tradeoffs sometimes, but we need to understand the tradeoff we're making, and not get caught up in the idea that we are simply correct and people who disagree are one big unified enemy entity.

Is housing activism the reason you're taking this severe tack? That would mean you're suggesting to bulldoze that problem non-surgically. Because you accept the collateral damage for your cause?

While the segment of the population who are motivated and able to engage with the public comment process may often not be representative demographically, it's hideous (besides semantically inaccurate) to dismiss them as a special interest group.

It also doesn't make sense to include negativity and positivity as part of representation. Yes, people feel more strongly about bad things than good things, but that's everybody. It would be a mistake to try to excise that. It's already our job to account for it.

From your tone, this seems less like an opinion on democratic process and more like you just happen to have the opposite opinions of most people in the aforementioned segment, statistically, and you (perhaps understandably) are angered by them, and you see a viable argument for reducing their voices.

Short term how? As in "you'll get used to it"?

This is hard to follow.

Some people have opinions that are perfectly human, but that you may certainly disagree strongly with. And yes, some people have straight up crazy opinions. And yes, some people have selfish opinions.

So... your answer is "fuck the people"? What are you even talking about? This is a necessary part of government. You are not the keeper of Correct Opinions. You're suggesting doing the thing that citizens historically get their weapons out to (rightfully) eject from civilization.

You're describing the idea that thought leadership should be based on individual character, regardless of [non]fictional status, which is exactly the point of the pushback.

How on earth could you come to the conclusion that the people pushing back believe all fictional characters are good models of thought leadership? The parent's implication was that none are.

That's actually a major function of fiction. Remember, it's written by real people.

Then it's moot. If one doesn't accept normal court mechanisms in the first place, that overshadows the specific issue of the GP.

It's perfectly possible to have a consistent stance on the tool and feel differently about the tool's application in different circumstances.

You're implying that if two things occurred with inverted political parties, then they can't also have other differences. I think there's a probably a name for this fallacy, considering how common it is.

If you have two instances in mind that you think actually are the same except for the inverted political parties, and you can find somebody here who disagrees on that pair, then that would make sense to engage with, rather than this vague broad implication of hypocrisy.

It is a meaningful argument. Talking about the upsides and downsides of things is what constitutes meaningful argument. Loss of jobs is one of the worst downsides there is. That doesn't mean it's automatically not worth the upsides, of course. But it is obviously a "meaningful" argument.

Your wording implies you are more biased than your introduction is designed to imply. Otherwise, you wouldn't have described what she is doing as only an action against the customer, rather than as an opposition statement to the robots, with the customer's lunch as collateral damage, which would be the more dispassionate description. Nor would you describe her goal as world peace and prosperity.

If you feel bitterly about her actions, then put it into words. Don't hide behind a pretense of appreciating the complexity of the situation.

You'll have to start with changing the mission statement at the bottom of your page to remove the term "AI".

I think this is a good idea, but why is "AI" in quotes? It's a pretty obvious/straightforward property to be praised or criticised.

This is easily one of the most egregious examples of the "same people" fallacy I've seen on HN.

It makes me feel actually sick that so many people can't separate their positive feelings about AI from people's misery (it must simply be "complaining"), and vice versa. As if both things can't exist, for some reason. It's a common tribalism problem, but it's been kicked up a hundredfold by AI.

It's not a formal "news outlet". You can see what's on-topic at the top of the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Is this going around in other places today, or does posting something to HN qualify as "hype"?

It's unclear why you're arguing for this. We already know about the downsides of low-regulation capitalism. They're still downsides, and we may reasonably continue to talk about them as such.

There's a whole genre of comment like this where the implication is that if some effect is either predictable or inevitable by the nature of large in-place systems, then individuals are somehow not allowed to criticize the people choosing to enact the effects.

We all have free will. Just because you can legally make money being annoying or otherwise shitty, and if you didn't do it then somebody else would, that carries absolutely no implication that nobody is allowed to judge you for making that choice.

Criticisms of the format, "the same people", are virtually always irrational/tribalistic, and based on the "invented enemy" internet trope that happens when interpreting groups of people as being one person. I'd like to leave such common tropes outside of HN.

This is the opposite of logical. Missteps and corrections are a sign of conscientiousness, not "making it up".

If somebody always gets everything right in your opinion, you should be suspicious of your own values, not of the people who don't achieve constant perfection.

In any other context I would agree with you, but in software, the point the author is making is quite true.

MS would include superfluous icons because they observe it in other software and can't think for themselves, or they would omit superfluous icons because it never occurred to them in the first place.

Everything Apple does is carefully considered, good and bad.

I take the latter every time, because I understand how bad things are in software. I know it's unrealistic to be as choosy as I want to be.

Do not address people in this way. You are contributing to the exact problem we're talking about (how easy it is for information to turn out to be wrong).

Simply provide the new information, rather than snarkily implying that the parent is some kind of asshole. Save that for the normal internet.