hotdogscout

You helped me understand a position I never wrapped my head around before. Thank you!

I've never made a decision on few points of information, often I know researchers or their output for years before we interact, so it makes sense I don't have to care what language they use as this is a low correlation signal on their output.

Why is this the language they're familiar with? Serial dishonesty?

>Makes it sound like you got fired or something, or that you don’t take it seriously.

My background in academia colors me but the level of office politics some describe in the private sector genuinely sounds like a middle school drama club at times. I've personally witnessed incredibly talented individuals at FAANG companies get the boot for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with their competence. Think messy personal dynamics, bosses having affairs with coworkers aiming for a position.

It makes me wonder about this ingrained necessity for pretense and obfuscation in private sector communication. Why the need to constantly play these games as if acknowledging reality is somehow detrimental? In academia, while not devoid of its own issues, the selection process for students at least attempts to prioritize merit and potential. The idea that some of the most brilliant minds I've encountered might be filtered out by arbitrary corporate "standards," while incapable but politically savvy individuals thrive, seems counterproductive.

Pass me the cyanide, these people are ghoulish.

Why is this needed. Nobody acts like this in college, where do people pick up on the eldritch horrors of Corporate behaviour policing?

Seriously why the silly insuffer theater, demonstrating willingness to perform ritualistic sodomy of your ego?

Why are people at their jobs so fatally allergic to honesty?

>“yeah and that job didn’t end very nicely…I’ll just leave it at that.” This is not a good thing to say in a job interview.

Do you think this is helping you select better people?

I think this is selecting for fakers and cheaters.

That user is talking about university, not grade school.

It's undisputable he did badly in university and could not hold himself in academia because of this metric.

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/07/fro...

the TOS goes further and allows you to call gay people abnormal and mentally ill.

"We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation."

The carve out also focuses only on LGBT people. If calling someone abnormal and mentally ill can reasonably be considered insulting then according to this TOS you can't say it to someone with ADHD but you can say it to a gay person.

The TOS is not about enforcing truthfulness, it is about promoting good behaviour. For example according to this TOS you cannot call someone stupid if they have limited intellectual capacity. It doesn't matter if it's true or not because that's not the purpose of the TOS. I can't see any reason for a carve out specifically for LGBT people that allows this sort of technically justifiable insulting language when there is no such carve out for other groups.

I have a feeling people who love Le Guin love the idea of her and didn't actually read her books. Her style is impersonal, robotic and kind of boring.

Look at her most famous quotes for a snippet:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/874602.Ursula_K_Le_G...

While public health officials may face criminal charges, Nature magazine editors and the team of researchers that were contacted by the Chinese government and lied walked away with nothing close to extremely negative consequences. I didn't claim public health officials can fraud without consequence, I said researchers can. I can't find one instance of misleading science for political purposes lead to academic consequences for fraudulent researchers. There were researchers arrested for connections with Chinese Military by the US government but if it were up to Harvard I speculate nothing would be done, because it never has been done, as far as I know and looked at. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...

I also didn't claim Journalists and Intelligence Agencies are bearers of truth but it stands that to study something like Lab Leak or Havana Syndrome is a question in the realm of investigation, not science. No?

Peter is risking criminal consequences based on evidence gathered by investigation, not the scientific process. Also not because of purposefully misleading research but dangerous research and lies while testifying, which isn't fraudulent science.

That doesn't read like science, it reads like an ideological statement. The current punishment for scientific fraud is non-existent and academia is full of it and ideologically driven pseudoscientific research.

Subsequent evidence debunked that "post-mortem", as another user posted.

We've seen, with evidence, China pressure research groups and Nature into calling the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory. Like "fake news", "conspiracy theory" is now actively used by China as a way to shut down evidence.

From subpoenaed communications we even know that certain figures who publicly denounced the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy, privately believed the theory was likely.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-covid-lab-leak-deception-an...

Government covert operations are not the kind of phenomenon science can properly study because it's not reproducible and data is not open. It's the realm of investigative journalism and intelligence.

It's what I have, some people are poor.

Obsessing over silly details like these can be deceptively tempting procrastination.

It is a cliche antisemitic conspiracy theory, but as an insult it is not used at things that are Jewish but things that are woke.

Didn't claim it wasn't antisemitic, it is, a lot!

Degenerate was never used to describe people in a non-hateful context though, even before it became /pol/'s favorite word.

"Goyslop" as an insult is less about anti-semitism and more about how Jews are allegedly injecting anti-white multiculturalism (ex: DEI) in entertainment.

So things that are woke get called goyslop (as opposed to Jewish as you imply).

The attention market is filled with things that are fundamentally unworthy.

It's Darwinism at play not an attempt at science.

>the goal of presentation is not to surprise the audience, or have a clever twist. It's to be plain, open and honest.

Sometimes it is.

>you're probably being market pitched and what you see is fiction

Sometimes you are being market pitched.

It's all Steve Jobs did yet he's the classic example of good Power Point presentations.

For one the hero's journey includes resenting the call to action.

That makes the hero relatable but is not a strategy you can always easily include in a corporate technical talk.

"Just buy more of last year's product and let me enjoy my vacation, but no, you needed more features!"

If you're horrible at communicating it'll help as it forces you to simplify yourself as a character of simple motivations but it's not a recipe for success or attention or quality content, especially when you kill most of what people found interesting about the Iliad/Odyssey as theatre plays: Violence, Sex, Death, Love, Hate.

Death/Rebirth moment would best be embodied as a massive failure and some positions don't allow that kind of honesty or framing without risking your job, although it would indeed be more interesting.

The hero's journey is a bread and butter narrative from stage plays from 8th century BC. I'm of the belief that the structure is useless and what engages us are the emotions at display.

Even act structures are just an excuse so actors can change clothes during the play - there's no divine insight about writing there.

As others said, that video bored me and so did the blog post.

The hero's journey is not good Framework for a technical talk.

Be interesting, create a hook, what do you find interesting? What style draws you in? Emulate that, then branch off.

Conversation is a lot more complex and depends on reaction, audience, expertize. Every verbal interaction is a lot like writing.

If you're gonna read a book about it it should be How to Make Friends and and Influence People.

Corny title but a timeless working strategy for communication.

On Writing by Stephen King is fine too but tldr; be honest.

I bet it's the usual double standards the AI one percenters cater to.

No sex because apparently it's harmful yet never explained why.

No homophobia/transphobia if you're Christian but if you're Muslim it's fine.

Is this not the case for almost everything? Show a dog and show a cat and it'll light up different parts on the MRI.

For me it is the blatant disregard for truth people on the internet usually have when dealing with public personalities.

I have the same instinct to criticize hate mobs against him as I have when they're against Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu.

A sensational lie spread much quicker than the truth even on HN, with no sign of course correction.

I hope Sam feels fine after so much baseless harassment.

Such a nothing burger. Do moralists not get tired of picking up pitchforks?

Imitating a movie AI was a cool idea and imitation was the only legal way to do it.

Do you pull your hair when companies advertise with Elvis impersonators?

Nobody was significantly harmed by this, I can guarantee the rich people that use hacker news consume things from much less savory standards than imitating a celebrity.

Nestlé is strong but you pull the plug at THIS?

Pg has done worse and he owns this forum.

Have some perspective.

There are no other versions of people

Because you can't put the power to influence behavior on a straight line.

Each clique has it's own power structure.

Charisma, rule of law, pity, revenge, resentment, morality, resources, it's all a part of it.

The culture of class revenge/justice that fuels Marxism.

"The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", and "Marxist cultural theory", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis

It is >also< a name used by people who believe in a conspiracy theory about egalitarian politics.

>"Why bother, they won't do anything" has become a rather common phrase I've heard a lot in the past few years, from family to random retail workers, but I'm unsure if that sentiment is growing or not.

What kind of crime are people so commonly being victims of around you?