Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | intended's comments login

That's incorrect.

I'm one of the "nicer" mods on my subreddit because I'm polite and very careful and careful in how I construct my responses to actions.

But at the end of the day I'm also liked because I'm not the most active mod. The very act of exerting power over another user, especially someone who has never stopped to think about the rules or the site history, results in resentment.

The better your mod team is at being able to implement the rules, the more friction there will be.

People will also come out to complain more than compliment.

This results in distancing from the community, just because of how painful it can be.

Good tools to moderate create more ways to censor people, track them, decide what words are ok and others which are not.

In short, Victoria is far removed from the kind of things which make people hate admins.


The IAMA sub going offline/private was NOT about solidarity.

They needed Victoria to function, without her they are scrambling to figure out how they will do any upcoming AMAs.

The current AMA schedule (20 AMAs) will be scrapped.

"a load bearing wall in the house of AMA has been removed"- Knothing.

R/science had a similar problem, based on what a mod said in the original out of the loop thread.

As for The other subs, they may be doing it in solidarity.


> "a load bearing wall in the house of AMA has been removed" - Knothing

That is a quote by karmanaut not kn0thing (Alexis Ohanian). The comments by kn0thing have been in some cases just fuel for the fire.


Yeah, I feel a bit sorry for kn0thing. This must be an incredibly stressful time in the Reddit office, and that really comes through in his comments.

You clearly missed his antagonizing of the community in about nine different threads.

I believe nathans comments were sarcastic in nature.

No kidding. I'm willing to die alone, but that's because of a legion of horrible experiences. Without those I would be glad to be with people in are about and who care about me in turn.

I've regretted not being able to be there for the passing of one of my grandparents, and in general the entire family has and will be there at their last moments if they can make it. Not to mention doing what we can to ensure that they are taken care of and happy.


That's basically segregation/caste systems and the foundation of ensuring that the rest of the population considers it "that groups problem." And a few short steps from "god what is their problem."

It's the opposite of what you want a group to do, which is to engage with the problem, internalize it and reduce barriers with other humans.


I don't care much about the next Microsoft OS which is coming out. I am irritable that the new Pro is not out yet.

If someone had told me 2 years ago that I wouldn't give a damn about MSFT software and would care about MSFT H/W i would have wondered what they were smoking.

-----


With srs and As with other older joke subreddits - new subscribers can't make out the difference between seriousness, sarcasm and humor. SRS has evolved into a sub that takes itself seriously from what I've witnessed.

-----


But how would you know if it has changed? For all you know everyone is continuing to play along? The moderators of SRS are well known for being incredibly strict. Which is mocked with the image in the footer of the SRS subredit, where angles are throwing dildos a grave marked "free speech".

-----


I can't point you to a post or series of comments at the moment. Theory of Reddit may have some posts specifically discussing this, but I know of scattered comments and discussions by victims, as well as grey beards who've left the forum. I've also visited the subreddit.

SRS subscribers have long since past the stage where they just made fun of comments, and actively brigade and/or ally with other subreddits to punish various kinds of speech/thought.

Subreddits/Forums can easily develop a shared culture different from the initial founders. SRS is one such case.

-----


In India?

Even in first world countries, incomes for poets and musicians are not distributed on a bell curve. There's the very wealthy, and the paupers elsewhere.

And as other posters have pointed out - the goal for education is to be employable. Witness all those pol sci majors who have themselves to blame for not choosing an employable profession.

So the idea that someone can study music is a luxury.

Further this is India. Construction and road workers live under crushing poverty, where the daily calorie deficit alone makes survival difficult. There's a deficit of teachers for children let alone adults.

And America is today starting to ape the educational pressures of India and China, where taking up a non STEM field was a sign of failure.

-----


This is factually incorrect, the extensive documentation of the era makes it clear that the east India company and British rule made it a point to destroy native industry, vaccum raw material, on top of introducing laws and acts which penalized you for being a particular race.

All of those economic structures were destroyed and perverted by the conquerors.

-----


I really think that's too simplistic a view. As has been pointed out, plenty of countries that were not colonised lagged behind in industrial development. Many of those that were colonies (and I do agree colonisation had a pernicious effect) have been independent for several generations now.

As counter-examples, Japan went from being extraordinarily backward to being an industrial powerhouse in a single generation, in time to go toe-to-toe with Russia and the USA in the early 20th century, and walk all over Korea and China. For that matter, once it got it's act together China has surged forward, growing GDP by a factor of 20 in only 25 years. So why did Japan go through this revolution almost 100 years earlier than China? Why has India lagged behind industrially, while surging ahead in terms of IT?

There are a host of cultural factors at play here. Japan responded to US colonial interference by deciding to modernise to prevent that ever happening again. China responded to the humiliation of colonial aggression by tearing itself apart for 100 years. Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt have gone nowehere since the end of colonialism, while Israel is a technological powerhouse. Turkey always seems so close to finally truning a corner and becoming an advanced modern state, but never quite manages to get it done. 'Because colonialism' just isn't enough of an explanation for any of this.

-----


I recognize this, my short comment is in rebuttal to the theory that a difference in economic plans would have led to a difference in outcome.

To an extent it seems that this was the result of disruptive technologies being used to build a monopoly/exploitative position by first movers. Post independce, both India and China were caught up in the big ideological questions of that era and have been fine tuning their models ever since. China is the larget economy in the world today, and India has essentially taken its place in the race from 1990 onwards.

For me, the cultural factor argument has had its emphasis lowered of late. I used to assume that pre colonial India showed little activity or inclination to learn, but it turns out that there did use to be business families which would have explored and harnessed the new tech. this doesn't mean cultural factors didn't play a role of course.

-----


Yeah, cultural, political, social, there are a lot fo factors that affect economic outcomes. Ironically, it may well be India's tendency towards socialist command-economy, privilleged special-interest economics (subsidies), etc that is holding it back.

The lack of a need for an electoral mandate has freed the Chinese government from the need to actualy implement socialist policies (or on fact any particular policies, they can do what they like, regardless of what the people think about it using their communism 'with chinese characteristics' get-out clause).

-----


The fact that the East India company was a bunch of jerks doesn't change the fact that most of the world became richer, just at a slower rate. The results of a quick google search:

http://www.krusekronicle.com/kruse_kronicle/2008/03/charting...

https://wanhasni.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/prosperity-of-nati...

-----


I took a look at those articles and they don't support the position with sufficient authority or evidence.

Consider two charts from those two blogs - chart from blog 2 shows the contribution to global GDP of India and China.

Chart 1 from blog 1 shows how growth spiked by 1820 onwards.

Even if we take the data into consideration without question, 1857 is the year when the revolt of 1857 took place in India, and the British east India gave up control of India - handing it over to the crown. So at this juncture wealth transfer to the west has already begun from India at the very least.

Should that wealth transfer not occurred, I beleove we would have had even better outcomes than what we see today.

Britain and the west was able to take advantage of new technologies and increasingly build monopolies, while abusing government regulation and dictat to pauper competition, and disenfranchise and enslave huge swathes of people.

It was known policy to convert subject colonies into markets for cheap goods, after sucking out resources via slavery on low pay. Competing businesses or crafts were also removed from the picture where possible, and it's obvious that local rulers and governments were sacked or taxed regularly.

Logically we know that a fair market creates more wealth for all who participate. Given that this was a perversion of these ideals, I suggest that the British were at the right place at the right time, and ensured a standard of living for their country men at the cost of almost every country they touched.

If on the other hand, if countries had been able to compete and import technologies - which many business men of the time did try to do - it's certain that this would have driven even more competition and innovation globally.

-----


I didn't say wealth wouldn't have been higher if colonization didn't occur, though I'm definitely unconvinced of that. I merely said that growth did occur everywhere.

Logically we know that a fair market creates more wealth for all who participate. Given that this was a perversion of these ideals...

We don't know this. The relevant counterfactual is not a perfect free market, but whatever the assorted kings of India would have imposed. I don't know enough about the history to comment on their likely economic policies.

-----


Sorry, I have information which would be useful I'm aware that there were merchant communities in the kingdoms that would became India who did and we're looking into looms and technologies.

Since Britain was also monarchical, so the equation is - relatively- balanced.

-----


If I am to be Downvoted, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why I'm wrong or why you disagree.

-----


Wrong. Neither China nor Russia were ever colonized yet even today they lack behind the west.

-----


Did you sleep through the entire 20th century? The one where the US was in a spending match with Russia. China collapsed under the weight of corruption. USSR collapsed under the weight of corruption. Depending on who you ask, the US is collapsing under the weight of {corruption|bureaucracy|congress}.

-----


I hope that is what it means, because the alternative would be bizarre.

That said, I think Nadella will do a good job, and that many ideas that Ballmer had were starting to show their promise.

-----


I agree with this.

I'm in India, and there are so many times an hour that driving here makes me wonder what autonomous cars is all about.

For example, that guy driving on a two wheeler on the wrong side of the road, with 4 kids somehow balanced on the rear seat? How will an autonomous car parse that, or how would it parse a road where someone decides to take an illegal U-turn just because they can?

Even today, I saw something that surprised me, despite having see just about everything. A bus playing chicken with another bus, so that it could overtake from the wrong side and barrel through an intersection. While I fully understand, that a car will be able to respond through a shared data base of reactions, its still a situation which requires far more of a car than what is being promised right now.

I think the promise of a fully automated city transportation grid is actually what is being discussed. When all traffic obeys the same rules, the cost for automation and the expected degrees of freedom get drastically simplified.

-----


If you as a driver knew that an auto-bus was the same as a tram, it would start and stop automatically, follow a path. Make some decisions. It would be your job to not act crazy around it. If someone plays chicken with it, it'd report you to the police along with a video of you. Stop, wait for you to get out of the way. Then carry on. I fail to see the problems here?

"that guy driving on a two wheeler on the wrong side of the road, with 4 kids somehow balanced on the rear seat" ... what's to parse? A moving object, try to avoid. Stop to avoid danger.

-----


Or india will adapt to the autonomous vehicles and drive like sane humans. Its the same in many 3rd world countries.

In montreal, trains user rubber wheels. It totally makes sense to have auto-bus lanes and auto-highway lanes where every car on the lane has to be in automatic advanced cruise control mode.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: