Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | SquishyPanda23's comments login

> Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance.

I'm curious to hear what you think Wikipedia's political stance is?

Take the large number of science articles that have become politicized. Next, please name a couple of them that don't support the left side of the argument.

If there are a large number of these articles post a few examples. Posting articles where "the left side" and the scientific consensus happen to align is cheating of course. There are a lot of those.

I am not OP but I would cite the covid-19 article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19

There is research to support all kinds of propositions regarding the vaccine's efficacy and safety. Of topical consideration is its efficacy in reduction of transmission. The article has been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which cite the current research that the vaccine is less effective at reducing transmission against more recent strains of covid-19; and especially compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines.

Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891

Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that mask efficacy in reducing transmission for children is questionable at best, and also demonstrably harmful.

Citation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that vaccine efficacy wanes rather quickly compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines.

Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345

Further, all mention of "natural immunity" has been scrubbed (and future updates are being removed) discussing the reality that those who have already recovered from covid-19 possess natural immunity to the virus which is at least as effective as vaccines.

Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/

These are all relevant and credible citations to an article discussing many aspects of the virus, yet they are being actively removed.

I feel the need to postface my comments with the disclaimer that I love vaccines and have three covid-19 vaccines already, and am prepared to receive more. My comments are purely to provide a relevant and factual example to support OP's premise that there is some form of bias present in moderation of Wikipedia now. This bias is extremely difficult to quantify and qualify because there are millions of layers of bureaucracy built into Wikipedia's moderation system. It is almost ungovernable now, and those who have attained sufficient power and coordination can and do use that power to affect bias.

If by "the left" and "the right", you're thinking of US political definitions, please name a couple of politicized scientific disputes where the right-wing side of a scientific argument has merit.

I can think of one family of scientific subjects where the "progressive" side is almost as unscientific as the "conservative" side, and a particular case[0] where the "progressive" agenda was loudly denying the scientific state of the art.

But I cannot think of any cases where the "conservative" side had actively better scientific grounding. But that, of course, is probably due to my bias, my thought bubble, etc. So please, if you can rise to the standard you're setting, I'd like to learn about it. (If nothing else, almost all of my friends and family are left of me, and it's nice to be able to reality-check them, when social mores permit.)

[0] I'd provide my example, but I'm sufficiently afraid of progressive culture to not want to discuss the particular case under my own name. But I checked WP on the subject, and while it's not incredibly detailed either way, I don't think it supports the progressive side of the case w.r.t. the science. (In my assessment, the alleged progressives were wrong about the science in this particular case, although they may have been right about everything else, I dunno.)

There is the left narrative, and then there is everyone else.

The classic example is CAGW. If I know a person's position on that, I find I can predict their position on most any other contentious issue.

The average people on the street have plenty of received opinions that they are happy to share, but know little about the actual science relevant to them.

But, we were discussing Wikipedia science articles. The issue with Wikipedia is what is permitted to be said on some science pages, and what is quickly reverted.

Everyone is political. Good scientists (and good encyclopedists) ought to try hard to suppress that.

>The classic example is CAGW. If I know a person's position on that, I find I can predict their position on most any other contentious issue.

In case anyone was curious, it seems to stand for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" [0] (or Citizens Against Government Waste, which seems an equally stark signifier of the invoker's political position -- who better to exemplify "waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government" than, uh, Bernie Sanders?!).

"CAGW", for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming", is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate[104][105] except in reference to denialist tactics.[106]

[0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#CAGW

Ok, I can guess your positions on the issues now ;)

It’s not a “snarl” word. It’s an acronym which is used because the whole fully qualified set of words is too long.

All four words are necessary to state what’s being discussed. Anything less is trying to deflect the debate.

Working backwards, Warming: it’s a rare scientist that thinks the world isn’t warming. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was ice a mile thick where I’m sitting. We are also coming out of the Little Ice Age. A couple of centuries ago, you could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in the winter.

Global: local climate change happens all the time. No one disputes that. The discussion is about global climate change.

Anthropogenic: significantly caused by humans, specifically by emitting excessive CO2. This is theoretical, because by itself, CO2 can’t account for the projected warming. There must be a feedback to the real greenhouse gas, water vapor.

Catastrophic: The amount of warming is going to alter the global climate to the point that the Earth’s ecology and human civilization will be seriously affected.

The last two points are in scientific dispute. The computer models, which have many knobs, predict a bad outcome.

Historic satellite measurements of the global tropospheric temperature show that nothing unusual is happening. The increase is 0.14 C per decade.


It appears to me that the CAGW hypothesis is disproved.

Global climate change is a topic for some very interesting science. The solar system's position in the galaxy, for example. Or, the effect of the sun on the intensity of galactic cosmic rays.

The climate models can't address even recent pre-industrial global changes.

A "snarl word" is a neologism for the age-old practice of the creation of derogatory labels by people who are trying to dismiss things without the listener realizing they don't have good cause.

>The last two points are in scientific dispute

I don't think that's true. I think that a casual google will show that climatology is actually in overwhelming agreement that human activities are driving climate change, and here's one I did earlier [0]. To the reader: this is a testable hypothesis!

>It appears to me that the CAGW hypothesis is disproved

Argument by personal incredulity isn't always a fallacy. Sometimes, smart people are intuitive and well-informed enough to jump directly to conclusions without needing to cover the intervening intellectual distance. Maybe this is happening here, and I'm just not an exceptional person, but if I were you I'd consider wondering why the likes of Dr Roy Spencer and I couldn't turn our ability to outthink entire scientific disciplines to a more profitable end.

The issue is that stupidly oversimplified models from 40+ years ago have been borne out, sourced from both capitalist and Soviet science [1][3]. By all means, there are many, many inputs into the grand planetary system, but the inconvenient truth, if you will, is that atmospheric CO2 increases seem to track with temperature increases, in both modeling and the historical record. I think, by "many knobs", that you're trying to suggest there are many variables that can be tweaked -- nope! It's actually very straightforward. Are there complex, "more realistic" climate models that produce unorthodox results when their knobs are twiddled? Probably! But for every one of those you fixate on, remember that there is one big, simple one that continues to track with the thing we're trying to measure: observable reality. Bald-faced denial of observable reality is a pretty good signifier that some aspect of science has been politicized, whether in a Wikipedia article or in a congressional hearing.

You've made a lot of claims, but haven't really backed any of them up, or even explained them; "CAGW" is pretty clearly a snarl word.

[0] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

[1] https://eos.org/features/a-50-year-old-global-warming-foreca...

[2] https://xkcd.com/1732/ <- "This is just a temperature chart!" That's right, but its sources, which track the CO2 rise, aren't

[3] https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-m...

A relevant example of this is COVID. It became politicized, with [some of] the left taking the "we must vaccinate all infants and become hermits indefinitely or everyone will die" position and [some of] the right taking the "vaccines are harmful and useless and the virus is just a cold" position.

Neither of these positions is The Truth, as usual, but the result is that some of the things the right has been saying have been accurate but previously disparaged. For example, the difference between dying of COVID and dying with COVID, or accurately pointing out that the large majority of fatalities have been people with comorbidities.

> A relevant example of this is COVID

This is literally an irrelevant example because it's not related to Wikipedia. New, evolving science (especially as it intersects with many governments' policies) is always going to be wrong to some degree.

> This is literally an irrelevant example because it's not related to Wikipedia.

rel·e·vant /ˈreləvənt/

closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.

appropriate to the current time, period, or circumstances; of contemporary interest.

> New, evolving science (especially as it intersects with many governments' policies) is always going to be wrong to some degree.

Now this is an irrelevant criticism. Nobody asked for an example that isn't in dispute.

New, evolving science is the thing you would expect there to be the most political disputes over because the uncertainty causes people to believe whatever most benefits their coalition.

Doesn't Wikipedia have articles about Covid?

Yes but it doesn't say anything about vaccinating infants or any of the other strawman nonsense that the person I replied to was saying.

If somebody talking about their disability triggers you into such a strong political reaction, then maybe consider the possibility that you have let your own identity politics take too much control over your life.

> Also i have a distaste of the author listing their "disabilities" in their twitter bio.

People generally prefer disabled people not to talk about their disabilities or be public about them. But this sort of openness is incredibly useful. It's the internet and it's almost 2021. Let people talk about what they want to without being the internet police.

People talking about things is good, but people adopting their atypical traits as their whole persona (even if just online) surely can't be healthy?

You think anyone's Twitter bio is their whole persona?

I'm just curious, is Microsoft actually in violation of the MIT license here?

All future changes to this repo are copyright Microsoft, so Microsoft's copyright should be in the statement.

Arguably there should be an additional statement indicating that LesnyRumcajs holds copyright to bits of code that Microsoft hasn't changed.


(1) exactly which bits have LesnyRumcajs's copyright would have to be verified by examining source control history. Since LesnyRumcajs's copyright statement is visible on any commit where LesnyRumcajs holds copyright, this setup makes actually makes it easy to verify which portions LesnyRumcajs has copyright claims on.

(2) Including LesnyRumcajs's copyright statement in repo history seems to be all that the MIT license requires. The license doesn't forbid there being another more easily accessible copyright notice that doesn't list all copyright holders. It only requires that LesnyRumcajs's statement be included in all copies of the software, which it currently is.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. If what you're saying was true you could take any MIT repro, fork it and replace the license with a fully proprietary copyright claim or any other license. You absolutely can't take code and just change the license to anything more permissive without the original copyright holders permission.

It's definitely the case that at a given snapshot of the repository which has copyrighted code owned by someone else the copyright notice has to be there at that same revision.

The license wasn't changed. But yes, generally you can make changes to MIT code that aren't released under the MIT license.

> It's definitely the case that at a given snapshot of the repository which has copyrighted code owned by someone else the copyright notice has to be there at that same revision.

This isn't in the license. Where is this laid out?

MIT license is very permissive but the original author retains copyright and one of the very few restrictions is that you must maintain the original authors copyright notice. So you can use MIT code in a GPL project but you can't remove the original copyright notice and MIT license text.

I don't quite follow your thinking about removing the notice but having it somewhere in history; a given snapshot/ revision will be a distribution where someone can show up and download just the master branch newest state and not the full git history. In which case you surely have distributed a copy of the copyrighted MIT licensed code without complying with the terms of the license, right?

It's not sufficient that a metric be objective. The student's astrological sign is objective. But it's not a useful measure of college readiness.

Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success when controlling for other variables. And they're trivial to game.

They're a relic of back when people believed in IQ tests were useful selection criteria. Maybe there will be standardized tests in the future that are more useful, but we don't have those yet.

> They're a relic of back when people believed in IQ tests were useful selection criteria.

IQ tests are a very reliable proxy for academic performance potential. Is this even in dispute?

Yes of course it's in dispute. It's so dominant a dispute in intelligence research that it's hard to imagine anyone being familiar with research on IQ and not knowing that it's in dispute.

IQ tests are maybe ok at doing population-level correlations, but not at predicting the success of any given individual. Tons of things are correlated with intelligence, and IQ has the virtue that it's easy to measure. So it has uses for things like research studies.

But as an actual filter when you care about performance it's not great. Things like high school GPA are easier to measure and more predictive of college success.

You know, I did a google scholar search for this "fact" and in 2005 a research paper shows that self-discipline outperforms IQ by a factor of 2.

Can you provide evidence for this claim?

It’s interesting that the correlation gets weaker over time.

Self-discipline is a better predictor than IQ according to this paper from 2005. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=

standardized test scores, that is to say IQ test scores, are by far the strongest predictors of success available in any domain of the social sciences; nothing comes close, not even wealth. obviously high scores are no guarantee of anything, but there is nothing else that compares. to disregard them is to abandon the pretense of objectivity for nepotism.

> Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success when controlling for other variables. And they're trivial to game.

needs sources, and unbiased ones.

This is a very well studied field, just do a Google search

Do you have unbiased sources that indicate otherwise?

> Do you have unbiased sources that indicate otherwise?

The burden of proof lies with the person making a claim.


Wait, am I missing something? The child comment didn't refute the OP's point.

OP's point was "This sucks, they're doing away with objective criteria."

Child comment's points was "They are indeed doing away with objective criteria. These criteria are not valuable though "

The only claim made there was the child comment's claim that these (admittedly objective) criteria are not valuable. That claim was not backed up.

>OP's point was "This sucks, they're doing away with objective criteria."

Actually, standardized testing does not represent objective criteria for a number of reasons, so that's an incorrect assumption.

But, my point was why do we also just assume that it "sucks" to do away with it? Where's the evidence that they are effective criteria?

If we're demanding proof that they are not effective, then it's fair to question how we established they are effective in the first place. Else, it's really just a default assumption that represents a positive assertion (i.e. an unsubstantiated claim).


>This is not reddit

I've been on HN for several years. The quality was once much higher than it is now, but HNers have always been willing to call out posturing and logical holes.

>You have absolutely nothing to contribute but useless rhetoric. I asked for sources to whomever I responded to,..

Right. And if you already agreed with SquishyPanda's statement, you would not have requested a source. So, I just asked you to source why you believe what you believe. Why is that any different? In fact, that answer would add more to the thread.

I mean, if you believe standardized tests are valid for the stated purposes, then that's the positive assertion. Have you questioned it?

If not, then why not? If so, then what did you conclude and on what evidence? Please share.

>Just don't waste my time with these pointless comments of yours.

To be fair, I asked you for a source, just as you did of someone else. You wasted your own time with your unsolicited rant.

This is so dangerously drunk on Kool Aid, I can barely manage to reply. The SAT was begun in the first place to even out the different schools people came from so that elite schools couldn't just slide people in, or due to grade inflation, or whatever (and race!)

You make a distinction without a difference in this case, and what other variables are you controlling for? Class rank? That can't be gamed, you think? Rich people will always game the system, whatever it is. In many cases, the alternatives are AP exams, which aren't even available in all schools.

What criterion would you suggest? A lottery?

Read the article.

It's usually not obvious where to put the seams ahead of time so you can cut them when you need to split into microservices.

Plus keeping the API boundaries clean costs time and resources, and it's tempting to violate them just to launch this one feature. This extra discipline doesn't have any payoff in the short term, and it has unknown payoff in the long term because you're not sure you drew the boundaries ahead of time anyway.

So I think in practice what happens is you create a monolith and just eat the cost of untangling it when the team gets too big or whatever.

> To be readable, usable.

Go doesn't particularly value readability or usability. For example, the short variable name convention makes it harder to read code you're unfamiliar with, and there are a number of noticeable usability shortcomings, some of which are mentioned in the article.

I think Go's design goals were really to (1) reduce compilation time, which explains why Go has human programmers do work that compilers do in other languages, (2) be statically typed and compiled, so you can use it conveniently for microservices, and (3) have syntax somewhat similar to Python.

I think of Go as the successor to Java. Go is to Python as Java was to C++. That, plus the integration with many libraries is why it's taken off in some niches.

Honestly the biggest selling point of Go to me was that it's simple and consistent. It enforces strong opinions that I may disagree with, but it means everyone does things generally the same way which is an important component in readability. With respect to short variable names, the convention is to only use them for very local scopes (e.g., using `i` as a loop index variable). In particular, I don't need to learn a new language or run a daemon just to compile code with a few dependencies and ship a static binary. Similarly, I don't need to configure CI pipelines just to publish packages or documentation. I don't need an IDE, I don't need to shop around for a test framework or an external web server process because they're built in. I don't have to think about what version of the runtime and/or dependencies are installed on my target system. Plus performance is good and the ecosystem is substantial. Personally from experience, I weight these kinds of concerns a lot higher than whatever bells and whistles are available inside of the language.

You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.

> You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head.

In every state of which I’ve ever been a resident, responding with lethal force in such a case is in fact legal.

If that something is a deadly weapon sure. If it's fisticuffs and shoving then no it's not unless someone has you on the ground and is pounding away with no sign of letting up. I would say you would need to be beat half to death though or the jury is going to laugh at you.

This is simply false in most states. In short, you can shoot someone dead if you "reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself / herself or another". This does in fact include a guy punching you or trying to punch you.

This whole comment shows that you really don’t understand physical violence/haven’t been involved in it. One punch can easily cause physical damage that can ruin lives. One hard shove can crack someone’s head on a concrete curb. These are all things I’ve seen happen. The idea that you could be “beaten half to death” and then have the presence of mind to decide that it’s ok to defend yourself with a weapon is equally absurd.

Depends on what they're swinging, if they are swinging a lead pipe or brick it would absolutely be an act of self defense. Just a fist meh I don't see it happening unless there are multiple assailants attacking you

> nobody except the sender, the receiver and the service provider can read the messages

E2EE means the service provider cannot read the messages.

Only the sender and receiver can.

Thanks! I edited a whole lot and that came out ridiculously wrong! :-)

Haha, no problem. I do that a lot too :)

Forgot to upvote you yesterday, done now ;-)

> If people are willing to pay money for a service, that service is by definition valuable.

This is only true if you define "value" to mean "people are willing to pay money for it."

But that's a useless and circular definition. It's only tolerated because assuming that money is a proxy for value was useful for making crude models in economics.

You're welcome to provide a better definition.

"Value" is providing a benefit that is greater than the cost.

Benefit and cost to whom? If I use your definition and apply it to individuals, that's exactly how money works. If I'm willing to pay for something then it must have more value to me than the money I am paying, otherwise I wouldn't pay for it. So if people are paying for crypto or crypto services then those things must be providing enough benefit to be valuable.

To the parties involved. I think the question is -- what is the value to the party buying cryptocurrency? Outside of gambling, that's not clear to me. Which is not to say there is no value!

> If I'm willing to pay for something then it must have more value to me than the money I am paying, otherwise I wouldn't pay for it.

I disagree. People pay for stuff of no value to them all the time, for various reasons. That someone is willing to pay doesn't automatically mean it has value to them, although it does heavily imply it.

From the context, I think they were talking about discovery, not whether the books are available for purchase on Amazon.

Personally I don't think I've ever become aware of an interesting book via Amazon, but I've also never used it for discovery. Certainly you have to troll through a lot of nonsense results even when you have a good idea of what you're looking for.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact