sillysaurus3

Policing humor is a trope in dystopian novels for a reason.

If someone wants to make unsightly jokes, you're free to be offended. But implying that it's not acceptable to act that way is probably a bit far.

Why? It's fine to be offended. It's his project. Just fork and move on, if necessary.

As a closing point, it wasn't until minorities started being proud of their labels that they made significant progress toward equality and justice. There's no reason to tolerate society's perceptions when they're unfair.

pg's "Keep your identity small" comes to mind. But when it's a description of your mental status, it seems less like a label you choose and more like a label that chooses you.

In particular, it's different from wanting a smaller belly or bigger muscles or more money. All of those things are mutable. But being an introvert seems like a fundamental fact of your existence that's unlikely to change. In that context, isn't it better to wear it on your sleeve?

It's hard, certainly. But that's where a sense of community can help.

I think this is a case of haters gonna hate.

The defining characteristic of an introvert is that you feel drained being in a social situation. Extroverts feed off the energy of a crowd.

I know it wouldn't be 200 bytes, but this is a pretty great idea.

If you want to ruin six years of pseudonymity, you're free to do so of course.

In the context of the original thread, the claim was that modafanil use is uncommon in startups. I merely pointed out that adderall (which is mostly interchangeable) is quite common. I personally know at least one founder who uses it, for example, and he made it to YC's interview process last batch.

Beyond that, we've certainly interacted enough for you to have a pretty good read on me, so it seemed worth pointing out.

That said, it's hard to equate incarceration with slavery unless there's an economic benefit to the state in incarcerating prisoners. Is there?

Maybe your guess is mistaken, or you're trying to get me to reveal more about myself.

A bootstrapped startup that you stop paying attention to will rapidly stop making money.

Dota became a cultural phenomenon, and has stayed a cultural phenomenon, solely through the internet. No internet, no dota.

It's simply mistaken.

Or do I need to prove Dota is a cultural phenomenon? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OzWIFX8M-Y

EDIT: To phrase it more bluntly:

"The only game to ever become a lasting cultural phenomena via internet virality is Minecraft."

... is mistaken. Mario is the most obvious counterexample, but there are dozens of others.

Perhaps you're referring to founders specifically though, rather than people you've worked with.

There's immense pressure to say nothing. And that translates into you not knowing.

But the leap to "It's therefore not common" would be mistaken.

This is partly due to compensate for a medical condition.

Part of the reason it's dangerous, however, is because no one goes in prepared what to expect. The doctors' "do you have any questions?" line is a joke. And they usually don't take adderall anyway, so they can't tell you what to expect.

I think Elon takes/took adderall as well. Or at least I heard someone say that in a pretty convincing context, once. (So it must be true, right?)

The biggest thing to watch out for is the annoyance it imposes on your life. Get ready to spend every month going to the doctor, every single month, to get your script. Faxing/mailing adderall scripts isn't a thing, because controlled substance.

The second thing to watch out for is that it's easy to ruin your sleep schedule. But I don't know how true this is, because my medical condition is related to sleep issues in the first place.

That all begs the question: Is it worth it?

I remember sleeping through class. If I had been on it from age 12, I would probably have attained high marks.

The worst aspect is that you feel an urge to conceal it, because otherwise you feel classified into the same category as these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQVb6Cd-w8s

The other reason to conceal it is that people start to make fun of you or be dismissive of you.

It's a tough decision, and there's no clear right answer. There are pros and cons.For some people the cons outweigh the pros. One of my friends said that he felt like he was having a heart attack any time he took even a small amount. Another said he didn't want to take it because "he liked being able to think."

Both are true in certain contexts. If you need to plow through mundane work, there is no better way. But it comes at a price.

Then I thought better of it. We are all human, and we're all pressed for time. We're not out partying. No one drinks to do their jobs.

That was the first and last time. It's way too easy to think it can't happen to you. You just have to take it seriously.

Self-driving tech can't arrive fast enough.

This is an exaggeration, but only slightly. :)

Security costs convenience. But people love to be too lax. And it's so fun to point it out and see the look on their faces, or pop up an XSS in their favorite stack of choice.

My best one was getting remote access on a server thanks to an unsanitized PDF filename. They were calling into the shell like `pdf-creator <company name.pdf>` (or whatever the utility was called). They were a B2B service, so they never thought to set anyone's company name to something like "; <reverse shell here> #"

I just thought it might be fun to contrast the two worlds. Those big, stodgy companies that we love to make fun of... Those guys were some of the hardest targets. I once spent a week trying to get anything on one, and just barely got an XSS. And I was lucky to find it.

None of us see the scores. That means the mods can and do rearrange the comments however they want.

My comments, for example, have been rearranged to start and stay at the bottom regardless of upvotes since December of last year.

I've emailed multiple times about this and was told "Stop talking about it and write 20 good comments."

There were arguably good reasons for imposing the penalty at the time, on a temporary basis. But it's not a temporary basis. It's a jail term without limit and without a clear end. And I'm just not allowed to talk about it.

The only reason this isn't obvious to everyone is because the scores are hidden.

Note that on my other account, I once had a toplevel comment with 58 upvotes that was subsequently pinned to the very bottom of the thread, manually. The community thought it was highly relevant. It wasn't bandwagoning or flamebait. And I try to write well.

I don't know what to do about this. I thought about trying to start my own site, but HN has too much inertia. I could just start a new account. But dammit, I'm sillysaurus, and it's who I am. I don't want to run. I want to be a part of the community with everyone else.

I'm no angel, and I've made mistakes. But I'm sorry for them and I have been willing to cooperate and change. The mods simply refuse to remove three different penalties: I'm not allowed to vote for anything; I'm not allowed to post more than five times every three hours; I'm not allowed to fairly be evaluated with sibling comments (all my comments wear cement shoes and sink straight to the bottom).

And no one knows, because comment scores are hidden.

I think the mods do very well, by the way. We're all lucky to have these particular people in charge. But what else can I do other than try to talk about this? I've sent >40 emails on the topic, so it's clearly not going to resolve itself in other ways. And I'm tired of being excluded.

The frustrating thing is, I've seen this kind of treatment enacted on others (yummyfajitas...) and the end result is usually the same: They get fed up with the site and leave. And who could blame them? It's very frustrating.

But that's really the goal: To frustrate you and get you to want to leave, or at least to stop interacting with the site. After all, you were penalized for a reason, right? The solution is to get you to go away. And banning you would just piss you off and cause accusations of censorship.

The front page ranking is already mostly fiction. Stories stay and fall based on human intervention. A human classifies almost every story into a bucket, and that bucket determines how the falloff curve proceeds. It makes sense that comments are similarly classified.

But that's manual curation. It's not community driven. So if your content doesn't really fit with those doing the curating, you're given the boot.

I'm not really upset about it. It's just a surprising twist of fate, and something I've thought about for a long time. Maybe this comment will serve as a warning to others, at least: be careful what you write.

Of course, that's rather dramatic. Who cares?

Well, I care, because I love this community since I was a teenager. And it's weird to see it evolve. But I'm not a teen anymore and it's not a small site anymore, so I understand that's just how things go.

LE are a US corp, subject to US laws, and at the whim of US court orders. The implications of that are worth gaming out.

Our laws are (arguably) mostly fair. But there are cases where they're not.

Picture a world where an administration rises to power in the US on a platform that seems insane, but everybody endorses it anyway. And this platform just so happens to be against the sort of thing you're trying to do on the internet.

Sci-hub are stealing. We as a community are mostly fine with that. We don't consider it stealing, because the moral good outweighs the bad by a hundred to one.

But this isn't about Sci-hub. This is about a world in which we're free to do as we please, because we have the ability to decide what we want to do. If we want to make a site that can make information available, and someone else doesn't like that information or feels that they own it, what do you do? You have no power.

And when you blindly put your faith in institutions like Let's Encrypt on their platform of openness and trust, you set yourself up for a shift: One day you wake up and find out you were mistaken, and we were all mistaken to push this centralized model in the name of security and convenience.

And of course, that's the fundamental truth, isn't it? Liberties have always been eroded by pushing security and convenience.

We should think carefully about who we trust, and why.

At any point in history, have CAs revoked certs solely to censor a target website?

Maybe the answer is yes. I don't know. But this is a rude wake-up call for me and everyone else who tried to force the world into this shape.

We've all been shouting "You have to use TLS! It's fundamental security 101. If you're not using https, your site is probably broken. And there's no reason not to do it, since it's so easy."

Surprise: Now nobdoy trusts http, and those that control https can revoke their trust based on arbitrary human morals rather than solid technical reasons.

I was a pentester for years and not once did anybody mention this threat anywhere. It's blindingly obvious in hindsight, but it was too easy not to think about it.

Let's Encrypt is in the exact same position. Why do we trust them? Think about it -- they're under US jurisdiction and subject to US laws. The government could compel them to revoke certs.

We're lucky that it's just a minor annoyance. Picture a world where no major browser renders http at all, and the only way to get a site online is to have a trusted cert.

This is not far from reality: If the Magic Leap turns out not to be vaporware, they're going to be launching a DRM-powered internet that can't be adblocked. And that means we'll all be subject to government whims far more than we'd like to admit.

He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007[1] – charges his defense team claimed were U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001.[2] This defense was not admissible in court because the U.S. Department of Justice filed an in limine motion,[3] which is often used in national security cases, to exclude information which may reveal state secrets. Information from the Classified Information Procedures Act hearings in Mr. DiNaccio's case was likewise ruled inadmissible.

EDIT: Nope, I'm wrong. That would involve sending sensitive data over unencrypted channels, which is a no-go.

Personally I wouldn't care and I'd want that, but that's irrelevant.

This is very true in my experience and probably worth underscoring. How many of you feel like your boss isn't supporting you? Whenever that happens, watch out.

There's a flipside, though. It's not as scary to change jobs as it seems. And you'll probably be much happier.