Be careful about what you dislike • Hacker News Board

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#11

Post by wolfgke » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 12:54 PM UTC

praseodym wrote: post #6

wolfgke wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you say "John is foo" you tend to create the impression that John will always and has always been foo. Interestingly in Spanish and Portuguese there are two verbs of "to be": "ser" and "estar". These have different meanings: ser ist mostly used for persistent states of being, while estar is mostly used for something that is only temporarily as it is, but could be different the next time.

Isn't that a bit like "is" vs. "is being"?

> Isn't that a bit like "is" vs. "is being"?

I'm not a native speaker of English, so I might not perceive some subtleties. But at least how I perceive it is the meaning of "is being" is similar "estar", while "to be" is used for both meanings in English. In Spanish and Portuguese (as far as I understand it, I'm still learning a lot) "ser" is used only for the "permanent" meaning.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#12

Post by 9mit3t2m9h9a » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 12:59 PM UTC

I think the effect described in the text has another side: imagine that at some point using XYZ was obviously a bad idea for multiple reasons for a specific person in specific circumstances. Obviously, keeping track of the changes in XYZ will have a lower priority for a person who is not going to use XYZ anyway, even if one of the multiple show-stoppers gets fixed/changed/redesigned. This means that the person's opinion about XYZ slowly gets stale.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#13

Post by MereInterest » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 1:01 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #3

andybak wrote: post #2

I'm fascinated by the topic of English Prime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime It introduced me to the idea that 'is' should be treated very carefully. Any assertion outside of strict formal languages that use it are half-truths at best. It also introduces heightens the emotional tone of a discussion. If you say "John is foo" you tend to create the impression that John will always and has always been foo. Foo-ne…

> If you say "John is foo" you tend to create the impression that John will always and has always been foo. Interestingly in Spanish and Portuguese there are two verbs of "to be": "ser" and "estar". These have different meanings: ser ist mostly used for persistent states of being, while estar is mostly used for something that is only temporarily as it is, but could be different the next time.

Also interesting is that this distinction occurs in some dialects of English as well. In AAVE, this is the distinction between "Elmo is eating cookies." and "Cookie Monster be eating cookies." The former indicates a current action that is taken. The latter indicates an action that is often taken. One is a statement about a person's actions, while the other is a statement about a person's habits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitual_be

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#14

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 1:04 PM UTC

> Then the entire thing spiraled out of control: people not only railed against TTIP but took their opposition and looked for similar contracts and found CETA. Since both are trade agreements there is naturally a lot of common ground between them. The subtleties where quickly lost. Where the initial arguments against TTIP were food standards, public services and intransparent ISDS courts many of the critics failed to realize that CETA fundamentally was a different beast.

CETA has ISDS as well, and if only on that point alone, CETA is objectionable. This argument comes off as disingenuous, the similarities between the deals are not imagined. ISDS isn't even the only similarity; CETA also contained objectionable new copyright provisions (though apparently those are mostly gone now), for example.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#15

Post by the_mitsuhiko » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 1:07 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #14

> Then the entire thing spiraled out of control: people not only railed against TTIP but took their opposition and looked for similar contracts and found CETA. Since both are trade agreements there is naturally a lot of common ground between them. The subtleties where quickly lost. Where the initial arguments against TTIP were food standards, public services and intransparent ISDS courts many of the critics failed to…

> CETA has ISDS as well, and if only on that point alone, CETA is objectionable.

Author here: that is not disputed. However the ISDS in CETA is a permanent tribunal where both Canada and Europe elect lawyers equally. The processes also require transparency and there is an appeal process. None of that was in the original draft of it and has been added over time as a response to criticism.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#16

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 1:10 PM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #15

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #14

> Then the entire thing spiraled out of control: people not only railed against TTIP but took their opposition and looked for similar contracts and found CETA. Since both are trade agreements there is naturally a lot of common ground between them. The subtleties where quickly lost. Where the initial arguments against TTIP were food standards, public services and intransparent ISDS courts many of the critics failed to…

> CETA has ISDS as well, and if only on that point alone, CETA is objectionable. Author here: that is not disputed. However the ISDS in CETA is a permanent tribunal where both Canada and Europe elect lawyers equally. The processes also require transparency and there is an appeal process. None of that was in the original draft of it and has been added over time as a response to criticism.

Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. The fundamental problem with ISDS is not its lack of transparency, but that it allows corporations to sue governments for domestic policy changes in the first place.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#17

Post by the_mitsuhiko » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 1:16 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #16

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CETA has ISDS as well, and if only on that point alone, CETA is objectionable. Author here: that is not disputed. However the ISDS in CETA is a permanent tribunal where both Canada and Europe elect lawyers equally. The processes also require transparency and there is an appeal process. None of that was in the original draft of it and has been added over time as a response to criticism.

Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. The fundamental problem with ISDS is not its lack of transparency, but that it allows corporations to sue governments for domestic policy changes in the first place.

> Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS.

There is nothing wrong with ISDS.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#18

Post by zazen » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 1:16 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #13

wolfgke wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you say "John is foo" you tend to create the impression that John will always and has always been foo. Interestingly in Spanish and Portuguese there are two verbs of "to be": "ser" and "estar". These have different meanings: ser ist mostly used for persistent states of being, while estar is mostly used for something that is only temporarily as it is, but could be different the next time.

Also interesting is that this distinction occurs in some dialects of English as well. In AAVE, this is the distinction between "Elmo is eating cookies." and "Cookie Monster be eating cookies." The former indicates a current action that is taken. The latter indicates an action that is often taken. One is a statement about a person's actions, while the other is a statement about a person's habits. https://en.wikipedia.…

The distinction between current and habitual actions also exists in standard English, of course: "Cookie monster eats cookies" vs "Elmo is eating cookies". I'm not sure whether this is quite the same as the distinction the comments you are replying to are talking about. They're talking about a less absolute way of using "is" to ascribe attributes, rather than actions. More like the distinction between "John is an angry man" and "John is angry right now".

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#19

Post by johncolanduoni » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 1:17 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #9

It's not the responsibility of the author to anticipate future changes that might weaken his current arguments. The reader is responsible for taking into account the time and context of the text they are reading. It's why we like to have e.g. "(2013)" added to anchor texts on HN, for example.

It is, when the author is writing them (or saying them) in 2016. I thought he made it pretty clear that was what he was complaining about.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#20

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 1:19 PM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #17

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. The fundamental problem with ISDS is not its lack of transparency, but that it allows corporations to sue governments for domestic policy changes in the first place.

> Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. There is nothing wrong with ISDS.

In that case, can you explain how Canadian and European legal systems are so insufficient for seeking legal recourse for legitimate grievances that companies need to be able to sue either government in international tribunals? Because that's ostensibly the argument for ISDS, and I don't see how it applies to Western liberal democracies with properly functioning courts.

The argument against is cases like the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case. Why couldn't the same happen under CETA?

If you don't see ISDS itself as objectionable, it's not surprising that you disagree with the argument against CETA, but please try to understand where opponents are coming from.