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

> You don’t think it’s reasonable to tell your employees that as a condition of employment they have to be at a specific location at specific times?

You think it's reasonable to hire someone remotely, then later forcibly relocate them to another, more expensive city, with no compensation? Because that's what's happened here.

In jurisdictions with stronger labor laws, that is not only not reasonable, but outright illegal (constructive termination).


> I am sure there are plenty of people who misunderstand or misinterpret statistics. But in my experience these are mostly consumers. The people who produce "science" know damn well what they are doing.

As a statistician, I could not disagree more. I would venture to say that most uses of statistics by scientists that I see are fallacious in some way. It doesn't always invalidate the results, but that doesn't change the fact that it is built on a fallacy nonetheless.

In general, most scientists actually have an extremely poor grasp of statistics. Most fields require little more than a single introductory course to statistics with calculus (the same one required for pre-med students), and the rest they learn in an ad-hoc manner - often incorrectly.


> The 0.05 threshold is indeed arbitrary, but the scientific method is sound.

I guess it depends on what you're referring to as the "scientific method. As the article indicates, a whole lot of uses of p-values in the field - including in many scientific papers - actually invoke statistics in invalid or fallacious ways.


> I guess it depends on what you're referring to as the "scientific method

No quotes needed, scientific method is well defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


The scientific method is sound != every experiment that claims to use the scientific method is sound

> The scientific method is sound != every experiment that claims to use the scientific method is sound

Sure, which is why I asked OP to define what they meant by "scientific method". The statement doesn't mean a whole lot if we're defining "scientific method" in a way that excludes 99% of scientific work that's actually produced.


> The one (and only) time I filled a prescription for propecia a couple decades ago, one of the warnings said something akin to: pregnant women should not even touch a broken propecia capsule due to the risk of birth defect.

Lots of drugs are bad for pregnant and/or nursing women. Propecia is not particularly special in this regard, nor is it especially dangerous compared to all the other drugs out there which are also bad for pregnant women.

"Do not handle" is a warning for topical formulations, just because those are intended to be absorbed transdermally.


> nah. its politically motivated hacktivists that are pro Palestinian.

This is... the most obvious false flag I've ever seen


We've seen it happen with RU flying under other flags with their Anonymous Sudan campaign. This could be a new campaign like this by them.


> Can we get the other half to convert? Gendered articles are so annoying to remember, especially if you have to travel between German-speaking places that don't agree on all the noun genders. English speakers cannot be expected to understand this!

That's what Dutch did. As spoken in most of the Netherlands, Dutch "eliminated" grammatical gender... which is to say it now has two grammatical genders: "both" ("de") and "neither" ("het").


> There are also a measurable economical issues for non-English-native nations to have to use the de facto lingua-franca of the day that is English. Of course neither German nor French would be a better alternative as a global international neutral language.

> To my knowledge, the only proposal that gained some modest but significant results on that side over the last century is Esperanto. You know, the language against which France has put its veto has it was proposed as language of communication in League of Nations (1920s) or UNESCO (1954) and still is unhelpful with its adoption in United Nations.

Esperanto is not a "global international neutral language" either. While artificially constructed, it's functionally a Romance language, deriving over 80% of its vocabulary as well as the majority of its grammatical structure from Latin and/or Romance languages. The majority of the remainder comes from other European languages, primarily Germanic languages.


Esperanto is indeed not culturally neutral (and was never supposed to be), but it's still vastly better in practice than other European languages precisely because of this overemphasis on Latin (and Greek) roots - because those are exactly the "fancy" words that tended to be borrowed most often historically even across language families.

Also, interestingly enough, Esperanto attracted more interest in some Asian countries - most notably, Japan - than in much of Europe.

I think the bigger problem with Esperanto is phonology. It's too heavy on affricates, including some relatively rare ones (e.g. phonemic "ts"), and the consonant clusters get pretty bad. For someone coming from a simple CV language, those are likely to be a bigger challenge than the word list.


> I assume they're under HIPAA regulations

You would be incorrect. HIPAA does not apply to 23 & Me (or, for that matter, to almost any direct-to-consumer product).


> A big difference is that caffeine isn't addictive. It may seem like it, and you do get a few headaches when you quit cold turkey, but you just don't get the intense graving you get with addictions.

I'm curious what definition of "addiction" you're using to arrive at the conclusion that caffeine isn't addictive.


Isn’t the standard definition that you continue to use the drug despite it causing serious negative problems in your life?


> Isn’t the standard definition that you continue to use the drug despite it causing serious negative problems in your life?

There's no one standard definition of "addiction", and most concise definitions (one or two lines) are extremely fragile and break down when you try to apply them in any meaningful context.

By this definition you're putting forth, caffeine certainly could be addictive, as could any substance - and in fact, nearly any behavior, which is why professionals generally frown upon using this measure definitionally, because it leads to pseudoscientific terms like "X addiction", for absurd values of X.


> This was for uBlock lite, a much lesser used plugin

Sure, but it's published by the same developer and has existed for a while. It's not a brand new extension under his account, or published on a different developer account.

I've built review systems before, and you typically have safeguards in place to prevent mistakes that impact your biggest users. No matter how you cut it, this isn't a good look for Mozilla.


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

Search: