thatoneuser

Did you just finish your psych 101 course? Harvard prisoner experiment and whatnot? Because that's what you sound like. You have no depth to your idea you're just stating it and that it's right and taking what you think is the moral high ground.

People are intrinsically competitive. If you think white people screwing natives was the first or only time this happened you should look into the history of the natives themselves. It's human nature - you can accept it or cover your ears, the choice is yours.

Sure, I'm down with that. Idk where you'd have to start but administration is probably a good place.

It's going to decrease value for the average student. It'll be ever more where you go than what you know.

If anything it will increase value? Don't buy it. What's your reasoning? Look at the value of college today on avg compared to that of 30 years ago and adjust inflation. People pay much more for what they get now than they did then, because of the saturation.

With the last bit - if you major in chemistry you don't have to take art or anything not chemistry. If you're art you take art. It's a sham that you're required to take all those other classes. They do very little for the vast majority, and if you want the knowledge you can take the classes as you'd like.

No offense but when you compared and said which is better - I had to read the rest of the slides to figure out which one was supposed to be better. Too many lines is gaudy but also can provide high level information. Too little lines might look "nice" in its own sense but then you have a lot of double checking.

Well if you're posting it publicly and claiming "this is better" then you're either wrong or open to criticism.

I just asked this question elsewhere in the thread. It seems that a lot of people just blindly believe it because it sounds good. But as you say between Asia and Africa we have over half the world's population. They're pretty far back in industrialization and they're bound to pollute way worse per person (divided by wealth on some way I'm sure).

Frankly I'm sick of people using environmentalism as their soap box like this. It doesn't make anything better to ignore reality because they want to condescend to the US and Canada and Europe. It's actively making it worse.

I see these two points made often yet I've never seen a comprehensive meta analysis that shows how true any of it is. Yes as you linked ppl will often give an article that supports that these things happen, but relative quantity is important. Otherwise this is just empty rhetoric, and environmentalism doesn't need any more of that.

Sometimes HN... Racket meant just as an operational endeavor. Not the kind where you nefariously earn money.

Racket: a person's line of business or way of life.

Edit: oh yeah kids are out of school. I thought things felt dumber around here lately

Hm kind of reminds me of Ikea's food racket. Actually I'm sitting here trying to think of why that wouldn't work but I honestly can't. Cool idea!

But the problem is when we make college more affordable it's value decreases meanwhile the product doesn't get any better. You're absolutely right about administration, but there are a myriad of other money suckers that have arisen.

I think part of the solution if you truly want cheaper education is remove all but core classes from the required curriculum so students aren't laying for bs classes majority of them retain none of. Then allow any student to sit in on any class they have personal interest in and allow generic automatic testing so the student can get a general feel for if they learned well enough (though my opinions on testing are low overall, I know many students still like the benchmark).

You aren't even making a counter argument, you're just being emotional. Yeah sorry to tell you - not everyone's going to be nice. If that were the case we wouldn't have to make laws to protect citizens from one another. I'm not condoning anything. You just want to beat your chest and act holier. You're the problem.

God no. We subsidized the shit out of college last century. On average it's not any better (the tech it uses is, but the university systems themselves are stagnant), yet it's much much more costly. Making it free would only continue this trend.

"concerns over misidentification are valid"

What else needs said then? This could literally erroneously grant a cop to shoot/tase/arrest you. What more do you need?

It's sad af, but it's human nature. Same shit why we can't trust our grandparents to handle their own money when they get older. Some slimey fuck out there is willing to put them in a poor grave to make a buck.

At this point I just hope the natives eventually make it into the modern world better. Pretty much all there is to do :/

Allegations should not be news. Misandry at its finest, considering she herself claims to be the victim of false allegations.

I empathize but how's that better than an old cow being slowly eaten alive by coyotes when it gets into the wrong pasture? Or a horse breaking a leg and... I mean it's nasty. Or a chicken dying of infection because it's getting pecked by other chickens? Or hell, a mouse being poisoned and eaten by a snake or other creature?

I feel like growing up next to a farm vs working on a farm is a big difference and there's a lot of torturous death you didn't see. It's death. It sucks by nature.

I'm under the impression that with the heat death, such a large vacuum would create the massive quantum states which would lend to a new big bang. Would that not also be infinite time?

I think that's the most interesting part of science - the place where brilliant minds hypothesize and ponder about what may be. Sure it's fluff but we'd no doubt say similar of Einstein prior to his publications in the early 1900s if we were there then.

We live in a world of echo chambers. Where people can't imagine thoughts other than what they've been fed. I think that while this isn't rigorous, it's a healthy thing in moderation.

ITT people who are blowing off privacy as though it's not valuable while simultaneously talking about Apple lock in like they're the only company to do that.

Idk what yall are on but privacy is valuable to most of us. That comes with a cost and it's not hard to see why - selling private data is how companies make more profit while charging less than apple. Don't wanna pay? You lose privacy. Want privacy? You pay. It's that simple. At last apple gives an option, meanwhile idk how Facebook and Google and all don't face regulation for the egregious privacy violations they commit.

Why do you say "privacy" as though it's not really that? It is privacy and privacy is immensely valuable these days.

And what do you think Google and Microsoft and Facebook don't also try to control their customers? They do just as much but they also violate privacy.

Your argument is "well maybe they won't be secure tomorrow and you're invested". Ok, but they are secure now and that's more than pretty much other major tech company. Yeah there's lock in with Apple, you don't think there is with Google too? Apple is worst I'll grant you but no one's innocent. Hell Microsoft had to pay 10s of billions for that kinda shit on the 90s. And let's not even get started on Google or IOT where they stop running the service and you're just SOL.

Apple give me privacy. Find a company that doesn't and doesn't have lock in and I'd switch in a heart beat but based on simple economics I doubt that's gonna happen any time soon

No there's plenty of universally good attributes. Not being prone to cancer, death and aging for one. You're trying to shoe horn a complex topic because you're uncomfortable with it. Theres more to it than waffling around idiocy in an attempt to shut down discourse on the topic.

Don't live in a place that you can't afford. If enough people moved away from SF to the Midwest then they'd live comfortably and local companies would have no choice but to increase wages to keep the rest around.

Whenever someone tells you "the only solution is..." You can just write them off. There's never only one solution to any problem, let alone one where the problem is purely speculative.

Unpopular opinion but eugenics definitely has the potential to create a "better" population. The problem is its highly highly unethical in any deliberate implementation and is typically orchestrated by tyrannical dictators who's ego and ideologies supersede the science needed to make it effective. I mean look at the nazis - they had some stupid ass theories that allowed them to claim they were a superior race.

But yeah if this weren't the case then you'd have to explain away genetic engineering of livestock and crops over the millenia. That said - no one should be orchestrating that shit.

Well it's mostly a fluff/bs term that people bestow on themselves to influence people into paying them anyway.

No intention to flame, I genuinely find this case fascinating.

So Devils advocate - the dnc was polarized before assange leaked anything. It was straight up controlled by Hillarys camp. If Hillary were some grassroots candidate or hell, if the dnc had just not deliberately sided with one specific candidate when their bylaws are crystal clear that that is wrong (not to mention common sense agreeing) - then yeah I'd say assange was playing presidential chess (though we don't know his actual impact) and that's bad. But that said - the dnc was corrupt as hell. I see assange having a metric fuck ton of moral wiggle room here. Personally it didn't matter what candidate did what Hillary got away with in that election - whoever it was deserved to be exposed and too bad if other incriminating shit came out too. My two cents.

Further, what I've seen is that ppl who dislike assange seem to base it on "well he did something illegal" (giving Manning instructions for hacking). Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad?

I'm still awaiting more details. I have no problems changing my views. But as everything stands now, I cannot help but think this whole anti assange business is fueled by the exact same propaganda machines that were running on behalf of Hillary in 2016. The ones that mysteriously shut off or slowed down the moment she lost. The ones that insisted that she didn't receive debate questions ahead of time. The ones that convinced so many that there was no server hacking. The ones that made trump look like an incompetent loser with no chance of winning.

I'd think exceptions can be made for exceptional cases. Like it or not, this is a subject that has implications for very fundamental freedoms that most free citizens consider necessary for a positive future. While it may be tiring to hear the repetition and indignation, I think certain subjects should allow it. If not, you are possibly censoring the voices for liberty and humanity.

The propaganda machines are too big and too well oiled. Stopping their dissidents, even if it's just on HN for the sake of a better HN experience, IMHO is too far. As long as the front page isn't bombarded constantly, people can scroll past to another article if they know the dialogue will be repetitive. I don't think that's too much to ask in dire situations, although maybe you're saying HN doesn't consider this situation dire...

EDIT: Lmao 10 mins in, multiple down votes but no responses. Good work HN.

Qualifications are fine. That's merit based hiring. Saying you don't have the right genitals or your skin isn't the right color and thus you don't deserve the job is wrong. Assuming that's what op meant by adversity as I rarely hear adversity referring to learned skills.

Because it's promoting hiring practices that rely on using gender/race/whatever to decide who deserves a position. Diversity (of intrinsic characteristic) has no intrinsic value, it's an ideology and an unethical one at that.