Currently if someone posts here (or in similar forums elsewhere) there is a convention that they should disclose if they comment on a story related to where they work. It would be nice if the same convention existed for anyone who had more than say, ten thousand dollars directly invested in a company/technology (outside of index funds/pensions/etc).
A browser plugin that showed the stock portfolios of the HN commenter (and article-flagger) next to each post would be absolutely amazing, and would probably not surprise us even a little.
This is speculation but generally rules like this follow some sort of incident. e.g. Someone responds to a FOI request and accidentally discloses more information than desired due to metadata. So a blanket rule is instituted not to use a particular format.
Worth the read: “The Trouble With Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh” https://a.co/d/7b7Jnt6
I couldn’t read Dilbert the same after that. Adams avoids, with surgical precision, things like unionization, while the author simultaneously supports downsizing despite seeming to mock it in his strips.
Anyway, shame he’s dead, but to me he died a long time ago. I only feel sad when thinking about how I used to enjoy Dilbert.
I don’t see the supposed hypocrisy of mocking the absurd and incompetent ways in which downsizing is handled, yet acknowledging that it is sometimes a net benefit to carry out.
I didn’t say he was a hypocrite. In his pro-corporate positions, he was very open and consistent. He saw his readers that believed otherwise as suckers.
Now that you mention it, I indeed cannot remember a single strip where unionization would be mentioned, despite it always being a relevant topic in the critique of office jobs
Very true, loved Dilbert. I guess I was unaware of his dubious takes early on because my only interaction was seeing the comics. Later on the interactions became Dilbert + Reddit post on how Scott Adams is an antivaxxer.
Scott Adam famously got into heated debates with his anti-vax audience on vaccines. Calling him antivaxxer is misleading. He changed his mind on a vaccine after new evidence came out.
From personal experience alone these drugs feel fairly easy to start and stop taking. So taking them every third or fourth month (or similar) would seem like a straight-forward option, unless I'm missing something.
While I'm happy to believe any/all of that might be true, accepting unsubstantiated stories like this isn't a great idea. You really need to start with the assumption that all stories like this are fake until some kind of evidence is provided.
If I was going to do some kind of exposé of my employers I'd at least include some semi-obfuscated screenshots to add some credibility to any claims I might make. Sure, things like that can be faked but it at least would require more effort to do all that (and make them appear credible) vs just a bunch of raw claims.
(I also don't think it's a great idea to judge claims based on how believable you personally find them. That often just leads to confirmation bias as you're just reinforcing your own biases).
When people say "western" they often don't mean "western hemisphere" but the "first world". So Peru wouldn't be "western" by this definition but Australia might be.
Yeah, HN just loves the term "The West" / "Western", which weirdly includes Australia and New Zealand, but excludes Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. (What about South Africa? Unsure.) To me, it is better to say something like "G7-like" (or OECD) nations, because that includes all highly developed nations.
No, what they really mean is "a subset of typically rich typically western europe that I can cherry pick to prove my point" though anywhere formerly colonized by a European power and any developed nation in Asia is fair game depending on context.
Notice eastern europe is nearly always left out of social issue discussions.
Some Mediterranean bordering nations are always left out of government efficacy discussions.
It's not about comparing like-ish for like-ish. It's about finding a plausibly deniable way to frame the issue so that the US gets kneecapped by the inclusion of West Virginia or 'bama New Mexico or Chicago or whatever else it is that is an outlier and tanks its numbers while the thing on the other side of the comparison exempts that analogue entirely and this makes whatever policy position the person doing the framing is advocating for look good.
You see this slight of hand up and down and left and right across every possible topic of discussion in communities composed of american demographics that generally look towards Europe for solutions for things.
I think the key thing (which we used to understand but seem to have forgotten) is that restrictions (including censorship) should be based on conduct, not opinion. Someone spamming commercial links, crap flooding, posting child pornography, even constant off-topic posting etc can justifiably be censored on a platform based on their conduct. But as soon as you advocate for censoring someone purely based on an opinion then you're making it dramatically easier for someone who shares your opinion to be censored later on. Although if we're being intellectually honest, even if there hadn't been any banning of wrongthink in the past, this kind of thing might still have happened anyway given the current administration and their allies. But it's definitely made it easier.
I remember when Alex Jones (or someone of that ilk) was being "de-platformed" by Google, Facebook, etc. Not only were people cheering for it, they were denying that being banned from YouTube (for example) was censorship since "there are other video hosting platforms" (yeah, there are but also not really) and "it's only censorship when it's the government who legally restrict you from speech".
(And Alex Jones is a detestable piece of shit just in case you think I'm a fan. But to paraphrase an old saying, freedom of expression is only a principle if it applies to people you utterly despise).
I just got a seven day suspension from Reddit for reminding a commenter that freedom of speech in the US only protects you from "consequences" from the government. Reddit's claim? That I was "encouraging violence". The root post was about that woman who got fired from Cinnabon after a video of her calling customers the n-word went viral and then the alt-right donated nearly $100,000 to her.
The ban message also claimed the suspension was done without automation.
reply