Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Too many people have peed in the pool

stephenfry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 555 posts

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#431

Post by emp_zealoth »

VLM wrote: post #383
kefka wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "defending family values" Which is what I hear exclusively regarding Christian activists. They disregard any non-Christians whom have families, or of other value systems.

This is an interesting side topic, social signalling and out of control holiness spirals. What do you get if you mix the tolerance of a religious inquisition with any side of contemporary politics? You get out of control holiness spirals as each author tries to outdo the previous at being just a little more holy, a little better of a true believer in the real story. Its a perverse game of "telephone". I propose VLM's…

As a person that lives in a country that is being sabotaged by catholic church i have to disagree. They might be mostly fighting internally, but it spills over into actual law.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#432

Post by meric »

randomacct44 wrote: post #422
derefr wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered whether you could just have a community that banned outrage. Literally: express outrage, get banned. "Signal boost" someone else's outrage, get banned. It's not welcome within the community. Would this even make sense? Or would this shove so hard against human nature that people would never be able to abide it? (Of course, sometimes you'd be outraged at the community—or its management—and that'd…

I've been playing Clash Royale on iPad (it's a multiplayer battle game set in the Clash of Clans universe that essentially drops the base building element and concentrates on the strategic combat). Generally, competitive multiplayer games can be pretty harsh (devolving into toxic) communities. Clash Royale addresses this problem in an interesting way. You're allowed to communicate with your opponent, but only from a…

I like using the 'Well played!' when my opponent makes a horrendously bad move.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#433

Post by philovivero »

blakeyrat wrote: post #340
gilleain wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree that SO has little community (or quite a hostile one, if any) but that may be because it is a victim of its own success. I see the same thing happening in other stack-exchange sites, sadly. The underlying problem may be the gradual fatigue at questions of the form: "HOW DO I DO DIS???!! SOLVE THIS FOR ME NOW PLZ!!" or even the more subtle "I was wondering about this homework-like question...?" which are…

My own personal experience with SO as a Q&A site is I've had a literally 0% success rate. None of the questions I've posted have ever been successfully answered. (Now I don't even bother.) I think that's because the site encourages people to get all the internetpointzzz reputation currency, and not to, you know, actually answer questions. And the questions I asked were somewhat difficult, because I'm not a dummy and…

Have you found... anything... anywhere that will answer your questions?

Because like you, I'm relatively bright and I do a lot of research before asking my questions. Hence they tend to get zero answers from:

IRC, mailing lists, personal emails of luminaries, Stack Overflow, Slashdot, or anywhere.

Generally I just keep hammering away and digging deeper until I figure out which CPU register is flipping wrongly that, to the top of the stack, caused the database query to return the wrong result (to give a synthetic example of the sort of thing I tend to run into and solve).

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#434

Post by iamnothere »

drdeca wrote: post #394
pixl97 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dislike/down votes have there own for of abuses such as vote brigades. I'm pretty sure there is not an easy answer to this problem.

What if, instead of trying to determine an objective ranking for content based on [up/down]votes, we used a correlational voting thing? Things upvoted by people who vote similar things to oneself are ranked higher for oneself, and things downvoted by people who vote more similarly to oneself are ranked lower for oneself. This might be computationally expensive, but approximations to it would be cheaper I think, and s…

I have thought before about the need for a "reputation" driven system, where the user can indicate who he or she "trusts" (and how much) based on their contributions. The system would then highlight information from trusted users and from users in the broader networks of trusted users. Other content would be available, but it would be displayed with less emphasis.

For this to work, the UX would need to indicate that a single "vote" means "this is a well-formed or interesting comment" as opposed to the "I agree" upvote or the ambiguous "like."

Overall I think this more closely resembles real-world networks. We are more likely to listen to those we trust, and we are often connected with new friends through trusted parties. We may occasionally interact with those outside our networks, but usually only in passing.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#435

Post by Shad0w59 »

meric wrote: post #432
randomacct44 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been playing Clash Royale on iPad (it's a multiplayer battle game set in the Clash of Clans universe that essentially drops the base building element and concentrates on the strategic combat). Generally, competitive multiplayer games can be pretty harsh (devolving into toxic) communities. Clash Royale addresses this problem in an interesting way. You're allowed to communicate with your opponent, but only from a…

I like using the 'Well played!' when my opponent makes a horrendously bad move.

This happens in Blizzard's Hearthstone as well.

People enjoy saying "Hello" just as they deliver the finishing blow.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#436

Post by bobbles »

meric wrote: post #432
randomacct44 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been playing Clash Royale on iPad (it's a multiplayer battle game set in the Clash of Clans universe that essentially drops the base building element and concentrates on the strategic combat). Generally, competitive multiplayer games can be pretty harsh (devolving into toxic) communities. Clash Royale addresses this problem in an interesting way. You're allowed to communicate with your opponent, but only from a…

I like using the 'Well played!' when my opponent makes a horrendously bad move.

Like the commenter below/above. Hearthstone restricts this to a set of common wordings such as greetings, well played, etc.

You also have the option to 'squelch' the opponent at any time, which mutes them completely.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#437

Post by mwfunk »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #157
chasing wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no friendly way to say it, the mass market are morons... I hate this super-condescending attitude. Even if you do happen to be smarter than the average bear (which, don't pat yourself on the back yet: there may be things these "morons" know way more about than you do), it's still asshole-ish to assume that everyone else just be completely dismissed...

> Even if you do happen to be smarter than the average bear > it's still asshole-ish to assume that everyone else just be completely dismissed... Devil's advocate: If you're above average intelligence, you're smarter than a majority of the populace by definition. Why would you not then dismiss the thoughts and ideas of those less educated? One person's condescension is another person's logic.

That person's logic is narcissism, not insight. I get that they think they're being logical, but really they're just lacking self-awareness. They're not revealing themselves to be smart people making rational choices, they're revealing themselves to be conceited people who aren't as smart as they think they are.

Put another way: someone who believes the stated Devil's Advocate position is by definition someone who doesn't understand the nature of intelligence, doesn't understand themselves, and doesn't understand other people. They might be making logical choices based on those misunderstandings, but correct logic based on false axioms is just as wrong as incorrect logic based on true axioms.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#438

Post by hnlogics »

lhnz wrote: post #297
hnlogics wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. You didn't make death threats. You just explicitly defended sending death threats to marginalized people who you feel have found a way to profit from being marginalized; and indicated your belief that if a marginalized person finds a way to profit from being marginalized then it is acceptable to threaten them, and to do violence against them. Fortunately for you, HN is a safe space for bigots, so your h…

That's not true. It is never acceptable to threaten someone or be violent. To be explicit again: the reason I say monetisation of suffering is bad is because monetisation of suffering causes more suffering . You think you're being a Good person but you've not thought things through. Every time Gawker decides to provoke a group of people with an offensive comment it's going to cause some people to relive past emotiona…

Your claims are evil and an attempt to silence victims.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with somebody profiting from telling a story that happens to involve bad shit happening to them. There simply isn't, and it's evil of you to pretend otherwise.

It is evil of you to claim that these people deserve the rape and death threats they receive; and that it is their fault that they receive them from people like you.

It is evil of you to continually attempt to lob nonsense at me just because I have quite accurately portrayed you as an evil and oppressive person.

There is no conspiracy theory. You are just a piece of shit who wants people with shitty lives to shut up, so that you can stop thinking about them. Because you are privileged garbage and you think it's FINE for people to send them rape and death threats.

You're a shitty human being.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#440

Post by foxylad »

derefr wrote: post #395
bricemo wrote: post #111

There have been numerous studies showing that outrage is one of the most viral emotions. For whatever reason, seeing something that makes you upset has a very high correlation with people sharing/liking/retweeting. I think this unfortunate fact is what is being born out in social media. Smithsonian had a good short article on it: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-emotion-go... Research shows that amaz…

I've always wondered whether you could just have a community that banned outrage. Literally: express outrage, get banned. "Signal boost" someone else's outrage, get banned. It's not welcome within the community. Would this even make sense? Or would this shove so hard against human nature that people would never be able to abide it? (Of course, sometimes you'd be outraged at the community—or its management—and that'd…

> I've always wondered whether you could just have a community that banned outrage.

One of the reasons I like HN is that outrage is discouraged.

Post reply on HN