There is nothing selectively jarring about 20+ seconds of grown women hyperventilating and screaming "nigga" during a supposed national scholastic event.
99 karma · joined March 20, 2017
That it is even called debate is tragic.
When did it become socially acceptable to behave in this manner?
I feel like I'm the only sane person on HN. How are people so oblivious to the downsides of broad, sweeping regulation?
Do you really want your government deciding what is and is not neutral content delivery? No one sees any way in which it can go wrong?
You're also imposing your cultural norms onto others. Guns and violence are simply a way of life for millions of people. Good luck taking those guns from your ivory tower.
You dont think there will be minorities clinging to their guns?
Dont you think your comment is a bit racist?
People act like guns are only useful for committing crimes and mass shootings. Guns are a tool; we have a cultural problem, not a simple gun problem.
I suggest you look into the stastics of shooting deaths in the U.S.. You'll quickly see that banning "assault" rifles is statistically insignificant, especially when considering the benefit of arms.
Do you really want a guy like Pai to have his powers expanded?
Why won't anyone actually answer any of my questions? Especially if the answers are so obvious.
Try starting an ISP, or go read about how it is nearly impossible to enter the market and compete with the likes of Comcast et all because of regulations. These are companies with ~50% approval ratings, ripe for disruption, and we are stuck with them because of regulations.
The principle of net neutrality makes sense, but I have yet to see anyone attempt to convince me that there isn't some danger to at least consider in this implementation.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think my comment justifies being called an idiot?
Edit: do you really want to give the Trump administration the power to decide what is and is not neutral content delivery? This is the kind of consequence I am attempting to discuss.
That's a little pessimistic, I think. Some problems simply do not become apparent and are difficult to anticipate prior to a certain minimal scale. This IMO isn't an issue with humans in general, our resources are limited in the design phase. There is only so much we can anticipate-and how often do you hear about large scale successes with the same magnitude of emotionally loaded reporting that you get with large scale disasters?
The fact that mining requires energy is not any different from literally any other action human beings perform to transact value. Bitcoin is just much closer to a pure exchange of information (which is all that value transfer really is) and so it's easier I think to stop and say "look at all those computers wasting energy doing nothing!" Since you typically see other "necessary" uses of power in non BTC transactions.
Not to mention the various solutions that could substantially improve BTC efficiency in the way of both hardware and software (e.g. asics). The fact that the BTC network is energy intensive is not as big of a hit against BTC overall as people seem to be making it out to be.
Not to mention that everyone is screaming about the energy use without considering both cost and benefit.
I really don't think things are as clear cut as the article implies, but I dont have numbers for the amount of energy consumed by modern electronic value transaction and storage.
Edit: also, "city's worth" as a measure of electricity, as in the article, is a terrible choice because it immediately biases the reader and does not convey much useful information. My GPU maxes at 300W; the article provides no way of conversion. Never mind that a small city may be a suburb using one hundredth of the power used by a small city center full of servers and a handful of skyscrapers.
This article is sensationalist nonsense. I would argue it is a positive point that a globally tradeable cryptocurrency with billions in market cap only requires the energy of a "small city."
The government in the U.S. has already regulated ISPs to the point that an enormous artificial barrier has arisen to market entry.
We need deregulation. Approval for the major carriers in the U.S. is low enough[0] that someone could probably disrupt the entire industry, except it is next to impossible to enter.
You're also aware of regulatory capture, right? This regulation was premature, and, as is typical of government, overreaching.
Imagine even further expanding the power of the last three administrations, especially with the disaster that is the patriot act. Regulations are bad for business and bad for innovation, outside of monopoly laws, and those give me pause as well.
0. http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-still-ranks-last-cu...
This makes me nervous, I'd much rather the government stay out of the internet. Legislation is painfully slow to both make and unmake, and legislators will almost certainly be out of touch with the technology and there is a real risk of a restricted, heavily regulated internet which is far worse than what we have today. Not to mention that such a classification opens up ISPs to equal time laws, where the government decides who is or is not a candidate and forces telecom companies to play equal ad time for all candidates. Here's a great example of how this law would have already broken down: how many Republican candidates were there last election? Would you have wanted your ISP to be responsible for shoving political ads down your throat? How could you even enforce equal time laws on ISPs?
Net neutrality is a power grab by the U.S. government, and the propaganda has been well executed IMO; but I really hope that we will leave the internet to the markets. I dont trust our government to make something as enormous and complex as the internet any better, and it's been going quite well so far.
Also, it is unfortunate that people continue to politicize police killings and attribute them to race. Such treatment is ignorant of stastics.
I think these glaring inconsistencies are just starting to tear the left apart. The right have their own problems, but they dont tend to be so obscenely inconsistent as to divide the base along racial and gender lines.
You've judged an entire race, including myself, and accused us of having some kind of property. Worse still, you use it as justification for taking from those you've determined have this nebulous "privelege".
Its identical to the logic used by white supremacists against Jews, or groups like the panthers and blm. Racism is not ok just because you're a minority and you think some guy had it easier because he's white.
It is so absurd that I have to point this out. That casual anti white racism has become so acceptable.
Look at places like Zimbabwe if you want to see where this could go. We made some 60 years of progress in race relations, and now people like you go around dividing us and screaming about something ad nonsensical as white privilege.
Let me spell it out to you, because you are truly oblivious to your bias. You blanketly characterized a group of people based off their skin color. And let me remind you, you brought whiteness and white privilege into this as though it were relevant. Not me.
I'm not interested in addressing the rest of your comment until you recognize your egregious racism; otherwise your logic is simply inconsistent.
Unfortunately, people will take this as another example of how "racists are stupid," but they dont realize that the only people who are willing to touch what communities like HN have made taboo are those with nothing to lose, or those who have already been "outed" as the racists they'll be accused of being.
Research into gender and racial differences does not need to be as sloppy as this Kierkegaard guy, and I can't deny that he unfortunately has an agenda, and that he's created a breeding ground for confirmation bias and cherry picking.
Point is, though, taboo is antithetical to science. And when we dont treat it as such, and cordon off certain topics as "not socially acceptable questions," then we end up with shit like Kierkegaard.
I suppose we should differentiaye between illegal and legal immigrants. I'd venture to guess that, on average self selection for intelligence manifests in the form of legal immigration, while the so called "tenaceous" immigrants tend to ignore legal borders.
Before anyone accuses me of white supremacy or privilege or such nonsense, my parents were first generation legal immigrants.
I had acquaintances who didnt understand why I lived so far below my means. But most people reluctantly agreed once I explained my plan.
Worst case if this all comes to nothing I can go back to a job.
For perspective, I did this in Houston, was able to buy a house and have a social life. Lower living costs will push that six figures a lot further than it would go in a place like SF.
Edit: I do not appreciate being painted as a fringe extremist for refusing to ignore data. This "feminist" culture extends to HN, where I have been repeatedly down voted to oblivion for daring to suggest anything in this article.
The irony of course is that the down votes support everything that the "extremists" in the article claim is happening. The trouble is that we simply cannot have open dialogue while questions and answers like this are taboo, and so the problem of gender inequality in the workplace may never be solved.
I'm glad more and more people are become aware of the absurdity of the taboo.
Edit2: down votes are not intended to signal disagreement. You are reinforcing the toxic culture that breeds people like the ones in the article, by policing unpopular, but not low effort, answers. The trouble is that we can't even post supporting data because the topic had been taboo for at least 2-3 decades!
We see obvious, massive physiological differences in performance, but no one even considers the possibility that gender correlative differences in workplace performance could be manifestations of physiology.
No, we down vote instead. You people are cowards.