Theranos has been the only biotech firm that I've seen mentioned on the news lately.
Is there anything GOOD happening in biotech right now?
190 karma · joined November 26, 2015
Is there anything GOOD happening in biotech right now?
Or even better.
"A person at a tech conference caused two developers to be fired".
That way we can judge the situation within its own context, rather than letting our own affiliations or views bias us.
Either I have been so bad at communicating my point that it came out as garbled nonsense or you've confused me with someone else.
I am all for people being able to downvote whoever they want without needing to explain themselves. The only reason I mentioned being downvoted at all - by 1 guy, I think - was to point out that the same people complaining that they are being "unfairly downvoted for having controversial opinions" have no qualms about downvoting people with opposing views. Which, in my eyes, is hypocritical.
It happens to everyone, so it annoys me when I see people complaining about it in every HN thread that has divided opinions on some social justice movement or whatever.
There's no "Please explain why you've chosen to up/down vote" pop up on HN, so no one really owes anyone an explanation for it either. That's just how things are.
Odd though that so many commenter choose to interpret this as "look! clear proof that there is no sexism! everyone has been overreacting about it!"
If you don't believe that sexism is a real issue, look at source [0]. It says so right there:
"While women have gained many more rights and freedoms in most of the developed world, especially since the beginning of the 20th century, women still face discrimination and harassment worldwide. Until then, women in most of the world did not have the right to vote, and were treated with even greater disrespect than today."
Maybe the women that cubano observed were not attracted to any of the guys that cubano saw approach them either? Maybe they weren't attracted to them because they were actually creepy?
I have never seen a woman treat a friendly guy who approached her as creepy just because the guy wasn't "attractive" to her, unless that guy was only being "friendly" in his own mind and actually acting very sleazy.
That's not an "opinion" it's an implicit way of saying that everyone talking about it is kind of dumb for even bringing it up.
EDIT: OH WOW, I HAVE BEEN DOWNVOTED. Which is not something I normally care about since I post quite controversial things anyway. But downvoted by the same people complaining about being "unfairly downvoted by others"? The hypocrisy of you.
Like I said, I felt insulted by you labelling my off-hand comment as "outrage", especially after you agreed that I was factually correct.
In hindsight I can see why you took offence to my original comment, but there is a massive difference in connotation between saying "I am offended" and "you are outraged". [0]
As I am a big proponent of free speech online, your implication of what I should and should not be able to say has been quite vexing to me, hence my annoyance. But I shouldn't have conflated that with whatever your views on trans women are.
Their values can simply be different, and it is valid for them to disagree with you based on the conclusions they get from those values.
Aggression is defined differently by different groups after all, so the set of actions that a libertarian objects to based on their understanding of "aggression" would be different to a set of actions that someone else would object to based on a different understanding of "aggression".
Obviously you disagree with their conclusion of dismissing libertarianism and blocking libertarians, and that's fine. What's less fine - in my eyes - is to imply that the disagreement comes from the fact that you are the only one who understands some basic Truth about the world and those that disagree are foolish and cliche for disagreeing with you.
That's the sort of thing that I associate with religion, rather than an honest intellectual discussion of political merits of an ideology.
If that was indeed an honest error then you could have elaborated on how it was possible for you to hold both of these contradicting views simultaneously, and I would have admitted that I was wrong to assume that you were a prick.
Since instead of doing that you've decided to deflect with "STOP WITH THE OUTRAGE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!", I did surmise that you are simply not aware of what 'respect' is. Hence while it was wrong of me to take on that role of 'teaching' it to you (what a waste of effort), I stand by my implication that someone should have done that by now.
Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claiming that your friendly input was "outrage".
Unless they're actually offended by non-violence, in which case they probably did you a favor.
For example, here's mine: In my opinion when some dude enters a conversation and calls a huge chunk of the people in it "intellectually lazy and weak", that dude is kind of an asshole, and probably thinks that he is way smarter than he actually is.
Your opinions are that it's OK to casually look down on people for having political views. I think that's a legit reason for someone to think that your opinions are full of it and are worth downvoting.