“Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches • Hacker News Board

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#81

Post by frobozz » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #76

kazinator wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's okay for you to adhere to your faith. If you ask me to move my seat, you're asking me to adhere to your faith. I say let him stand; the airline should deal with it. Finding an acceptable seat for him is their problem. I don't have a booking issue with my seat. If the airline wants me to move, they should either pay me two hundred bucks, or move me to business class, or first. They have no qualms about charging f…

That is exactly what happened. In the source tweets it does not look as if any of the original by standards were asked to move. If I am wrong, please let me know. The men were not asking for the women to be moved, they were asking to be moved.

You are wrong. These are quotes from sources 1,2 and 3.

"Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move." (not "he")

"when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions" (i.e. asking the woman to move - admittedly only one seat over)

"before the woman acquiesced and said, ‘I’ll move.’" (not "before they found a spare seat next to a man"). In this one, it doesn't exactly say she was asked to move, but the fact that she eventually "acquiesced" does seem to imply it.

In Sources 4 and 5, it appears that the Hasidic man moved.

In none of the sources does it say anything about who did the asking and why. There's a difference between the Hasid demanding that a woman be moved, and the staff attempting to relocate the woman as an expedient way to satisfy a polite request to find a seat without an adjacent woman.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#82

Post by gravypod » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 9:27 PM UTC

frobozz wrote: post #81

gravypod wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly what happened. In the source tweets it does not look as if any of the original by standards were asked to move. If I am wrong, please let me know. The men were not asking for the women to be moved, they were asking to be moved.

You are wrong. These are quotes from sources 1,2 and 3. "Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move." (not "he") "when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions" (i.e. asking the woman to move - admittedly only one seat over) "before the woman acquiesced and said, ‘I’ll move.’" (not "before they found a spare seat next to a man"). In this one, it d…

Ok, in case one it seems that the flight attendant or the women acquiesced.

What happened in case 1 is more of a toss up, so I'd say that it proves both of our points. The person asked to move, but the women ended up moving.

Given that, there is a 2/2 split of the other cases.

There is no evidence to suggest that either of us are right.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#83

Post by gue5t » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

whybroke wrote: post #77

gue5t wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is still how web searching works. I have no idea why you would think otherwise--at its core Google is still fundamentally an indexing service, and you use indices by figuring out which words may be in the documents you want to read and then finding the documents containing those. Without doing this, it becomes impossible to distinguish documents which are what you want from documents which describe what you want…

I dunno... https://www.google.com/search?q=how+can+i+pirate+movies Seems to have no results about pirate movies.

The only result, of the 10 on that page (right now, for me), that answers the question is https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-bittorrent-is-the-best-way-to-...

But if you search "using * to pirate movies" (google will match the star, even in quotes, with a word or phrase in result context), every result will include the name of a method for pirating movies, which you can investigate further. I see "popcorn time", "bit torrent", "pirate bay" and "camcorder" on the first page. These are all direct answers that a human would consider reasonable (though of varying efficacy) to the question.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#84

Post by tgb » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

sjbase wrote: post #5

I have an interesting dilemma. On one hand, I want to commend you for not using the author's clickbait title. On the other hand, I don't want to give the author more exposure (because of the clickbait title) by increasing this post's comment score. In the end, the first hand won. Thanks! :)

And here I was able at the article for spoiling the fun of it's 'guess the search terms' game in the damn title. Nope, it wasn't the author I had to be disappointed with, it was HN's blind adherence to keeping the original title AND removing click bait. A much better title would have been the original or something like "what to include in Twitter search terms".

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#85

Post by cgh » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

hluska wrote: post #37

gravypod wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be fair to say that since I am from America that I should get upset at anyone who wears a hijab for their own religious purposes? Covering women is very anti-American, specifically being prominent in the most recent generations. Yet, as civilized people, we can come to the understanding that even though I don't support something doesn't mean that I have to tell others how to live their lives or expect them t…

Oddly, almost this exact issue was a major issue in the recent Canadian federal election. The Conservative government attempted to ban niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. They went so far as to appeal lower court rulings that doing so was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They lost the election and the new Liberal government ended the attempt to ban the Niqab. Interestingly, as the Conservative government…

>> It sounds so bizarre that a sitting Canadian government would suggest such a thing

I, and many others who didn't vote Conservative, still supported their efforts to enforce a ban on such a regressive mode of dress during citizenship ceremonies. I don't think it's bizarre at all to address these sorts of things at a federal level. Citizenship is important and people who refuse to show their faces don't deserve it. I'm sorry if this doesn't match your ideal of an "inclusive" society or whatever.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#86

Post by atomwaffel » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 10:25 PM UTC

vanattab wrote: post #78

apozem wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Twitter is a fantastic way to find leads and potential sources. You can't and shouldn't cite a tweet from a random person, but you can cite reporting done after finding a source on Twitter.

>You can't and shouldn't cite a tweet from a random person Except this is exactly what ~90% of the articles that "cite" twitter do.

You have a point, but it's explicitly not what the author did. His screenshots show him replying to each of the tweets, asking to talk to their authors, and he goes on to tell their stories in the article. If anything, this shows how valuable a research tool Twitter can be when used properly.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#87

Post by mdip » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 10:34 PM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #14

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith. It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

My approach to answering this comes down to a very simple phrase that explains my political beliefs succinctly "my rights begin where your rights end."

I don't think anyone has any problem with people wanting to adhere to their faith. The problem they have is with people of faith demand that someone else, who is otherwise "following the rules" do something that inconveniences them because of beliefs they don't share and probably don't agree with. I've had vegan friends who choose not to eat meals with me because I am a meat enthusiast. I'm fine with that and with their life choices. But if we're dining together and they begin dictating to me what I can and cannot eat on the menu, you can expect that I'll be aggravated and won't comply.

It's wrong to ask someone else to accommodate your faith for you, especially when them accommodating might just as well fly in the face of their own, personal, convictions. Now, if this person attempted to purchase a second seat next to them and had that seat filled by another passenger, then I can understand them asking if they could be moved elsewhere. But if they're refused, the only remaining choice is to politely get off the plane and wait for a flight that you can be accommodated on. It's not "standing in the aisle and holding up the flight for 15 minutes". That person's religious convictions just ended up aggravating every passenger of that flight.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#88

Post by gohrt » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #36

gravypod wrote: post #14

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith. It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

You have the freedom to practice your religion. You don't have the freedom to interfere with a planeload of other people. > When passengers started to board, he said, an ultra-Orthodox man stood in the aisle, refusing to move and delaying the departure for 15 to 20 minutes until another passenger volunteered to switch seats. That's wasting 75 hours because he didn't make his needs clear before hand, or didn't take th…

To be fair, it's not really possible for someone to even attempt to arrange gender-separated seating in advance , even if plenty of other passengers are perfectly content to cooperate (perhaps even desirous! there are many cases where even non-religious women are more comfortable not sitting next to a man)

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#89

Post by gohrt » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 10:43 PM UTC

hluska wrote: post #37

gravypod wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be fair to say that since I am from America that I should get upset at anyone who wears a hijab for their own religious purposes? Covering women is very anti-American, specifically being prominent in the most recent generations. Yet, as civilized people, we can come to the understanding that even though I don't support something doesn't mean that I have to tell others how to live their lives or expect them t…

Oddly, almost this exact issue was a major issue in the recent Canadian federal election. The Conservative government attempted to ban niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. They went so far as to appeal lower court rulings that doing so was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They lost the election and the new Liberal government ended the attempt to ban the Niqab. Interestingly, as the Conservative government…

French law does ban religious attire for public servants. Cultural attitudes vary widely on such matters.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#90

Post by gohrt » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

forgetsusername wrote: post #46

gravypod wrote: post #14

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith. It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

> It seems fairly reasonable that I don't really find it "reasonable", whatsoever, that someone can't sit beside another human being on a plane because SupremeBeingX doesn't want them to. In fact, "reasonable" may be the exact opposite description of the situation.

s/SupremeBeingX/personal beliefs about gender relations/