Theft is a genuine option that some choose to take. However, it can also be attributable to a cross-roads of ideas that emerge at the same time. Often, A product (or products) enable another product. Other times, ideas are rediscovered (eg. Luck, influence through a TV show).
As you said though, the competition is good for us all. If someone is asleep at the wheel, someone else will take over.
Can you clarify "I think some people get so combative because their identity is wrapped up in being right."? If people are discussing a topic, I want people to say "what is true" where it adds value to the discussion. I feel that "right" misses the basis of what and why and is largely irrelevant to Respect in conflict.
Conflict is good when managed and it adds value. You usually end up with more rounded or more complete ideas.
This can fail when there is a lack of respect between adversaries, a lack of understanding or a lack of truth from at least one side.
On your point of community vigilance, Administrators/site owners should set the rules of engagement and a culture (eg. No ad hominem attacks). If the community determines the rules of engagement, you can have the community derail itself far too easily. I'm seeing quite a few communities lose the plot recently through political correctness or through a hostile community that self-regulates. One of the best sites I visit is very rule based. The moderators do a great job of setting the rules and when the community loses focus, the site owner/moderators recalibrate. I keep thinking of leaders vs committees as a good parallel.
I don't have simple rules about what rules should be applied to respect in conflict. There are several examples of exceptions that come to mind: Karl Popper talks about not tolerating the intolerant; Political Correctness can introduce prejudice (and has spoilt some good communities).
That all rings of truth. HR overstate their abilities and interfere far too much. Over the years I've been told "if you hire, it's your risk", which turns into "I'm glad we picked Sam".
Also, if you're a woman, don't make a big deal about it. Saying "I'm a woman ..." Anything will almost certainly get you shown the door - this is a red light for "attitude". There are many indicators I see, people who talk about being manages during a technical interview, etc. all bad signs.
One: you'd be surprised how many women have been programmed with ad attitudes/entitlement. Makes me sad.
I've hired quite a few people over the years and had an excellent success rate. I look for a few things,
1. Cultural compatibility. Ego generally not good. Wanting to work with others - good. I've knocked back "stars" because they'd try to derail a good team
2. Basic competency in the areas needed. If I need real-time knowledge or distributed systems, show me enough that you know the traps.
3. Ambition/commitment. If they're too ambitious they won't last. If they lack commitment, they won't strive.
Ultimately, it's about creating the culture where willing and capable people will fit.
Someone mentioned about their wife being an expert and not being hired despite HR recommendation. I've seen this on several levels before, "I like this person so they should be hired". However, HR do not understand culture of teams, relevant skills, etc - although they will tell you that they do. "When I said they need to be able to program machine language, I didn't mean stacking vending machines". My example is flippant (I'm tired, not thinking), but the idea is there. HR don't have the knowledge in most organisations I've worked for.
That book makes sense, to a degree. Language does not tell us how to think, but it can constrain what we say. I find that our words reflect what we think, particularly when it comes to our prejudices.
Common indicators are language that is inclusive or exclusive (we/us/I Cs them/they), notions of gender (eg. Feminism indicates a prejudice toward one gender).
I have found that when someone has a biased mindset (particularly an exclusive one) and you point out their mindset through their use of language, most moderate people start to think differently and as such, their language changes.
However, I find that emotive people and political correctness break this pattern. This parallels the "faith" gambit - logic never enters the equation.
This is a double edged sword, and most probably the thing I like least about HN. It strikes me as elitist and encourages a particular type of groupthink That I am uncomfortable with. As an example, conservative thinking is usually rewarded and less conventional thinking is usually overlooked. In some ways, I find HN to lack diversity in its culture and what it values (which is why I rarely contribute - I definitely put myself in the "on the fringe" category who will remain that way unless some diversity in thinking creeps in, or there's a radical change). This is interesting because I am a big contributor at other sites where I feel diverse thinking is more respected .. I am absolutely happy to accept this is my own bias, however, HN is a unique experience for me in that respect (except Slashdot that I gave up on for similar reasons).
Personally, I don't pay any attention to these scores. I prefer less profile visibility, less badges, less karma and more weighting on an article or comment in isolation.
If anything, maybe encourage certain knowledge domains, eg. Science or biology. The domains themselves are less important to me at this moment (except where they are political - and I include gender politics in that: it's stifling and off putting to me, despite its current popularity), but it may diversify what I see and view at HN.
Ultimately, I don't get a lot of benefit from HN, but there are some (few) exceptional articles that I wouldn't otherwise see - which is why I visit HN. Diverse thinking is very important to me.
I am more likely to attribute HN "rigging" to encouraged groupthink than being gamed. Other than categories and less egocentric measurement, I don't have suggestions that would improve things.
I apologise if my post offends, I've felt these views since I first came to HN. It's not intended to insult, but it most probably will.
According to Wikipedia, for high income earners, the divorce rate after 10 years is 23%... Or about 1 in 4.
If I understand correctly, the idea is that the separation should be equitable (which makes sense as you were building a life together). However, this varies if there are kids involved.
I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender.
You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%), or You are suffering confirmation bias.
None of my friends have divorced - but that's luck more than anything else.
They would have said "weather the storm". To deny would ha e been folly.
They also locked down IT so that no one person had access to everything.
They may also have increased scrutiny of materials they could bring onsite/take offsite.
Most of your other comments are fair about Audtralia. This one is not.
Australia has always been apathetic - "she'll be right" was our catch cry. Until recently (the last 20 years or so), we maintained that casual attitude.
Since then, we have culturally become Americanised through TV and movies. With it has come a callousness and a higher level of sophistication and a greater sense of entitlement.
I would suggest two points. It's a combination of apathy and self-focus that are driving our indifference to draconian policy. The second point is that the crimes you accuse Australia of are typical throughout the west. While I don't like to see what Australia has become, other western countries are no better.
Does anyone remember the blue ribbon campaign about free speech from the 90s? I went into all of the Australian IRC channels before the news hit. I called for my fellow Australians to rise to protect their freedoms. I don't think I've been attacked so viciously by so many people before or since that day.. That was and still remains Australia's apathy.
Like you, I feel we are in the minority in Australia. Social consciousness and concern for others rights is not on the landscape.
Can I ask why there is a need to exaggerate creeping into hacker news, particularly where it involves gender topics?
Barbaric literally means: Savage, primitive, brutish.
You don't help a cause with such inappropriate language. I switch off if people can't use non-political language and I'm a dad with young kids so the topic is relevant to my family.
I find the people who interest me the most are those whose view differs from others but is well thought out.
If everyone listened but did not talk, the world would be a boring place.
I'm a fringe dweller at HN. Someone mentioned relevant conversation and that's very true. I find some great things on HN that make me think. I used to frequent Ars Technica, but it became too sexist, so I now frequent a variety of non-mainstream sites for varying views of the world.
I'm lucky enough to have very interesting and diverse friends off the Internet.
Some potential ideas
- pay per listen, local cache
- embedded lyrics, photos
- extra sound bytes (exclusive to track owners)
- optional videos
- asynchronous Comms with the band: FAQs. News, interviews, etc
There are many things you can do that link purchased content with other content. Adding lyrics that appear in realtime would also be handy.
My ideas are now patented. Pay me 5% of all future sales please... Isn't that how patents work? State the obvious and rake in cash for doing very little?
Let's not applaud ANY feminism. Would you applaud a chauvinist for being a chauvinist? No, you wouldn't. Do not accept sexism from anyone. I do not consider recognizing a biological and quantifiable difference as sexist.
Next time you read the word feminist, think chauvinist and see if you feel differently... I'm sure you will.
Now, if someone said "respect the author, despite being sexist", I'd support that.
Or another way of looking at it ... We (should) do what we are interested in, rather than what others perceive we should do, or others may perceive as worthy.
My son is exceptionally smart (and I deal with a lot of kids, so I have a reasonable basis to compare). He's only young ... But his strong suit seems to be very involved stories that he makes up. If I were to guess (yes, I'm crystal ball gazing), he'll be a writer. Despite being one of the most academically gifted children I know, he is looking to "only" amount to a writer. If he does, I'll fully encourage that as it has been his keen interest since he was about 2. Mind you, I'll support any constructive interest he has :)
You also had the Mongols, arguably the most successful nation in history, particularly with conflict.
They relied heavily on spies and would often observe for years before the Mongols struck.
Ever hear of the Khwarazmian empire? One of the largest middle eastern empires? Worth reading about. The Mongol's success depended largely on spies. Success in this instance means "wiping the empire from the face of the earth", which is obviously subjective.
You do know what an Eco-system is, don't you? Where things are linked in non-obvious ways, and changes almost certainly initiate other changes.
This silver bullet mentality is prone to disaster. The bacteria may evolve, starting an arms race, leading to stronger bacteria, or possible fragmentation that makes management or synthesis time-consuming, difficult or may strengthen other nasties.
Do you really know what the impacts are likely to be? I'm sure you don't, which is why caution is essential. Flippant "silver bullet" speculation not-withstanding.
If you read the comments at the guardian, there are many well reasoned arguments. Some points include
- parallels to war on drugs (a failure)
- separating forced vs voluntary workers
- ability to report crimes where it's legal
- provides an opportunity/income for some to better themselves
One of my ex girlfriends became a prostitute. It's one example only. She loved (and supposedly still loves) sex. She was never for long term commitment. She is financially doing well. She featured in a documentary on the industry, and she provides counseling for abused women.
Very insightful posters. Glad to see common sense prevail, rather than the usual gender war (emotive) arguments.
I don't understand that argument.
If I use Facebook, it's easy to see when I log on/off to profile my usage (and possibly employment / holiday trends). If many of the people I speak to are young or gay or work in finance, doesn't that imply something about me?
I am not a fan of this Google policy (it leaves me very uncomfortable) and I support the protests. But, as far as I can see, I can opt out without being marginalized. That's the bit of your argument I cAnt understand.
Your argument, to me, appears to be that Google shouldn't be allowed to link you and your opinions to your real name. I'd argue "why not?" I don't use Facebook, etc for this very reason - I don't want to be profiled with the depth that Facebook allows. Am I marginalized? Not that I'm aware.
I'd also call it a "mindset". The younger generation are far more network focused. I developed a product that doesn't work/share online ... To protect privacy. But, I seem to be a lone wolf in that mindset.
Most of these popular technologies utilize online capability.
I'm not saying this as a statement of frustration, just a recognition. I deplore the facebooks and other data-mining tools so much that I would never develop a system that was engineered to invasively profile you - it reminds me of an anal probe. Most of my over 40 colleagues are like-minded (at least about privacy). This is a big advantage for the younger generation who see and think very differently.
The reason I occasionally let him stay with friends for the junk food/games/TV binge with friends is so that he learns all types of experiences. I don't believe in banning anything, just regulating. How else can we understand our world if we don't experience it for ourselves?
If I were to host the junk food/TV/games binges, I'd have to buy the console and games and stock the junk food ... Things that I just don't want to do .. So it's easier to let someone else do it.
In return, I take others kids on bush walks, to BBQs, roller skating, etc - so their kids get to do something different too.
There may be some "it doesn't happen in my house" as you suggest, but it's not my primary or secondary motivator.
Your observations are interesting. I'm in the early days of this process with my kids, but I do limit their tv and game time.
I've found (like the grandparent poster) that an absence of TV and games leads to other pursuits: sports, reading, programming, writing books, etc.
To give you an example: I just got the national school results. My son kicked ass in a school that underperformed. One of the key differences I've observed is ... TV and games. Other parents buy the books and encourage kids to do homework, but TV and games are too tempting for developing / young minds.
The other thing I notice is that after a while, routine kicks in and study has become fun for my kids.
The other obvious issue I notice is the mental fatigue that my kids have suffered when staying with friends for lengthy gaming sessions. We talked about his they felt, why they felt that way and side effects (short attention, lethargy, etc). But, they had no regrets and wanted to do it again. Reminds me of smokers... They know it's bad, but don't care.
When my kids are old enough, they can be responsible for themselves. Until then, they'll have to live with my constraints, healthy minds and bodies. I'll just have to accept your possible scenario that it will all collapse into a screaming heap in their early adulthood. Let's say, I'm dubious about your claim, particularly as most levels of freedom and responsibility are gradual with most kids ... But I have seen stranger things.
And what's to stop him becoming a citizen Kane like the others? The thing that's missing for me is the history of behaving with integrity. He's no Zuckerberg, but he's no patron saint either. eBay is not a beacon of virtue.
Is the idea that having the "right" popular journalist = unbiased reporting? I struggle to see the masses being convinced - or maybe it's just me.
Agreed. I also can't find any reference about iPhone 5s wildly exceeding expectations.
It looks like Apple put two horses in the race. One performed as expected, the other did not.
The article did say that iPhone 5s sales were good, but in my view, that's secondary. No burying the lede from my view.
#I think if Apple launched a "budget" phone it would destroy much of the Android market. Maybe it would damage their brand though, who knows.
The battle lines between IOS and Android are more around choice and configurability, not so much price. IOS has a standard set of highly polished features. Android has more features, but they don't integrate as well as they do in IOS, nor do they have the polish. Add hardware configurations, phone sizes, etc and you have a very diverse Eco-system with Android.
Most Android users I know wouldn't want an iPhone at almost any price. So, no market destroying would occur.
My last computer retired - 1 month ago. It was more than 5 years old, running Windows XP. XP is still very popular and I would expect it to still be supported and it's 12 years old.
Where did you get your 7 year magic number from?
I read a Joel Spolksy article about invalidating bad software patents. He mentioned it was very easy. How about invalidating 30 patents in 30 days ... From each of us?
No, they didn't make it seem worse. If I put the phone on my flat hand, and let the signal stabilize, I could drop the signal by about 16dB with one finger (as numerically shown on a jailbroken phone). This was often enough to terminate a call.
There was no "seem" about it - it was a bad design. If I could have gotten a refund AND gotten out of my carrier contract, I would have.
Should we ban anti-dumping laws?
Think about your post for a moment - if a company can afford to run at a loss long enough to destroy the competition, is that good in any way?
There is always a balance between service and price ... If there is competition and a level playing field.