oldmanjay

The point was that people have a rhythm dictated more by the sun's relative position than the time on the clock.

The inprovement in question is pretty tenuous, beyond the bias of believing your preferences are superior.

Contributing by being interested and actively listening is more important than knowing everything about everything.

Welcome to the weird politics of the diversity discussion

I didn't need a restatement, it is simple enough to understand. Your opinion is a lot of words to say "I think you're wrong" in the form of a bare assertion with nothing supporting it. Why would you expect anyone to care about reasons you could not be bothered to express?

I'm sure Vox would like if Facebook were obligated to promote approved opinions, but I'm not comfortable with any given group of people doing such sort of approval, so right now I consider an algorithmic approach natively superior.

Sarcasm is an ambiguous tool in text. I admit to an extreme current sensitivity to being told to be terrified by normal occurrences. My apologies.

Without getting too much into what side wins, "my opinion is correct but I can't be bothered to express it" is one of the least convincing arguments I've ever read.

There is nothing in the world we all need to be terrified about. You might need to stop reading huffpo

No. I can't imagine how a person living a life with no impact on mine could terrify me.

Organ meats

Justin Bieber can sing at least as well as Sinatra. They are about equal in prickishness. Bieber is still alive, so he wins.

That US economic boom was followed pretty spectacularly by a bust caused mainly by the rampant speculation that fueled the boom being based largely on bullshit.

You're clamoring for a soap bubble that didn't withstand a tiny pinprick.

It's a problem that needs to be solved. Or it's a savior for our tech industry. And nominally other industries.

It's the core of the reason we can't have equality and also the rallying cry for people who want equality.

It's a dividing line used to decide who is in v. out from many, many different perspectives.

It's a religion, and a rallying cry for people who want religion to have less, or no influence on public discourse.

It's a very fluid concept depending on what the speaker believes and what the speaker wants the listener to believe.

Most of all, it's a hot topic.

It's hard to make dystopian sci-fi if you're even-handed with the consequences of technology

Or if you can get them laid. Or a whole hell of a lot of other incentives. Humans are suckers for bullshit incentives. Just see how thoroughly the notion of "achievements" has taken over gaming for one instance.

I'm not the person who opined that Steve Jobs became a billionaire because he won the sociopath lottery.

I'm not sure what was passive or aggressive about my reply. Feel free to explain it to me.

Not at all. If you need to add words to a person's statement in order to refute it, you are engaging in rhetorically useless behavior.

I'll agree that morals exist, but they exist largely as things we indoctrinate children to believe without question. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing (or a good thing). I'm saying it's not a useful method to change an adult's behavior.

You see, if the putative discriminees were to go after the discriminators, it would likely result in a relatively small-money settlement. Much better to assert some bizarre form of group responsibility, to up the chances of a big score.

In other words, greed. That's all it is

I don't think it's a moral issue any more than our natural urge to defecate without using toilets is a moral issue. It has impacts on other things that are moral issues, but there's very little sense I can see in treating people's thoughts and feelings as evil.

I don't think treating it as a moral issue is a useful way to fix the problem. If anyone wants to demonstrate some evidence that it works, I'll change my mind. All I've seen is a coarsening of discourse and a lot of finger-wagging to little effect.

People are racist because humans evolved as tribal social animals, and so we are all extremely good at playing ingroup v. outgroup. Race just happens to be a very visible way to define groups. Defining it as a moral issue just leads people to try to beat it with shame, or other racism. Both are doomed to fail.

Usually you can find one or two people complaining that stories like this shouldn't be on HN, but I'd like to flip that one time and encourage people to keep posting them. I enjoy the sensation of clearing my palate, as I take my tech news from many proverbial firehoses, and the flavors are not always savory.

As a fellow former smoker, I don't agree that you have the standing to decide the best way for anyone but you.

Did you decide to compare cities with suburbs just to erase any vestige of intellectual honesty?

Another day, another post dismissing success as luck.

Let's take this somewhere. So what if it's just luck? What useful information can we glean from your dismissal?

Well your opinion is a popular one for sure. It's very important to a certain set of people to ascribe all success to luck and psychiatric issues. Not a terribly useful or interesting conversation, but definitely popular in a certain crowd.

You could stop asserting it's true even though you have no evidence. I won't hold my breath.

Are you not familiar with the notion of men being on the hook to pursue women? That's the connection being offered here.