Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What would you like to rant about?

news.ycombinator.com

11–14 of 14 posts

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to rant about?

#11

The five-star review was a mistake. Every product and service now sits on a scale between 4.1 and 4.9. It's a useless metric that has inflated beyond comprehension. Do anything else. Use a Net Promoter Score. Or binary thumbs up/down. Personally, I think more things should be based on percentiles. If IGN wants to say a game is a 7/10 it should mean the game is better than 70% of other games they have reviewed.

When someone says "7/10", what do they mean? It could be "it's pretty good but not spectacular" or "it's barely usable but I've seen much, much worse". I agree that we need a new system.

I forgot where I heard it, but I remember a game journalist saying that they preferred 7/10 games to 10/10 games. And I just wanted to scream at them. "Then fix how you rate games!"

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to rant about?

#12

at a certain point, we just have to accept the world as is, the world can get better, but it can also get worse and it is getting worse and its saddening to see and the incentives of the systems sometimes if not mostly promote the worse aspects and shine them. While the goodness is left out. and I feel like every single age of time isn't free of it. That was always borrowed time and tints of nostalgia and I think it…

About suffering, it's everywhere, sadly. I think most of life is suffering. Our own life is likely a mix of suffering and pleasure but if we view all life (not only humans but other animals), most of it is suffering. I think the way out of this is by intervening in nature, as nature has a lot more suffering than humans themselves do or have even caused. Look up David Pearce or even Peter Singer. Pearce's "The Hedonistic Imperative" was written in a very hard-to-read way, at least for me. Like, I had to constantly re-read sentences and look up words. Nevertheless, I loved his ideas. Singer's ideas are also worth considering. What I remember from reading Pearce and Singer years ago is that there's a lot of suffering in the world, that humans' suffering is just at tiny bit of it and that we should strive to reduce the overall suffering. It might sound like a pipe dream to intervene in nature - someone will say "we'll only make it worse". And probably right now we will, but I believe we'll reach a point where we can actually intervene adequately.

Zapffe makes interesting points but are too close to what I consider attempts to describe human psychology through vague philosophy. Yes, isolation, anchoring, etc. may be useful things to talk about, but his philosophy, at least from the minuscule amount I've read, doesn't discuss suffering generally (using terms and ideas like qualia, etc.), doesn't extend suffering to non-human animals and doesn't offer much of a solution beyond some psychological changes we can implement (which could only benefit humans).

But I love that you're focused on suffering. It sucks and it's the thing that sucks the most and that could suck the most - by definition, even. I rarely find people acknowledging suffering as something to eradicate. It's usually something more specific, like a problem with economics or unions or tech or mental health. But all these lead to suffering and suffering is what matters in the end.

I have yet to reread the rest of your post and reply (as I don't like to just reply immediately).

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to rant about?

#13
Mine would be "helicopter shots" when I'm watching the evening news.

I don't want to watch 45 minutes of "live coverage" from a news chopper hovering over a building on fire (or, from recent events in Los Angeles, water being sprayed on some storage tanks) while all of the talking heads try to make it sound interesting and relevant. Or, even worse IMO, a helicopter following a car chase for three hours, from freeway to surface streets and back to the freeway. Or a helicopter hovering over somebody's house for an hour because there are dead people inside.

This is worth 30 seconds of coverage. Tops. Move on to the actual news, please, and if it's worthy of a follow-up when there's an actual conclusion, another 30 seconds to wrap it up.

If I turn on the news and see a helicopter shot, I change the channel.

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to rant about?

#14

Mine would be "helicopter shots" when I'm watching the evening news. I don't want to watch 45 minutes of "live coverage" from a news chopper hovering over a building on fire (or, from recent events in Los Angeles, water being sprayed on some storage tanks) while all of the talking heads try to make it sound interesting and relevant. Or, even worse IMO, a helicopter following a car chase for three hours, from freeway…

I think that stems from the format. It has to be video so they must show something. Better than a stock footage of a fire or, as South Park did, an "imagine if that school was full of rabbits".

We see the same useless media in thumbnails of text-based news and in the articles themselves with irrelevant stock photos.

Not only is it useless but it makes me consider the site/network less reputable if they're engaging in such attention-grabbing practices that tend to pander to idiots.

Post reply on HN