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

Be careful about what you dislike

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#71

Post by steveklabnik »

twic wrote: post #69
hiou wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that people who sit in the greys tend to be very worried about their public perception or have very little passion beyond maintaining personal comfort. The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. To me it's the difference between a leader and a worker bee.

> The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. Sometimes called "strong opinions, weakly held". I find this principle to be incoherent - if you understand something well enough to have a strong opinion, you understand it well enough to hold that opinion strongly. Holding strong opinions on things you don't understand that well seems…

One aspect you're missing here is time; just because something is true today doesn't make it true tomorrow.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#72

Post by oxide »

twic wrote: post #69
hiou wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that people who sit in the greys tend to be very worried about their public perception or have very little passion beyond maintaining personal comfort. The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. To me it's the difference between a leader and a worker bee.

> The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. Sometimes called "strong opinions, weakly held". I find this principle to be incoherent - if you understand something well enough to have a strong opinion, you understand it well enough to hold that opinion strongly. Holding strong opinions on things you don't understand that well seems…

We all know arguing against a strongly held opinion usually results in the person with the strong opinion digging their heels in even deeper. At that point, things like reason kind of go by the wayside and don't have much effect.

As a poor example, my mother has fully bought into a snake-oil scheme where they sell you concentrated hydrogen peroxide as a cure-all. She won't hear a word against it, she always brings the conversation back to "OTC hydrogen peroxide has stabilizers in it." Asking "what is a stabilizer" gets no response.

The truth is, she doesn't know what a stabilizer is, but it's plausible enough to her that they could be "bad" that she's willing to buy the rest of the farm, along with the cow.

How can you argue against that kind of strongly held opinion? When the other party won't listen because of how strongly held the opinion is, you might as well talk to a wall.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#73

Post by onli »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #31
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the wrong question to ask even though there is a very simple answer to it: that the state is not impartial. The judiciary is what is in question, not the state per se. But even if they're not impartial, is that necessarily bad here? Shouldn't the health of a country's citizens take priority over the interests of shareholders? Why should foreign businesses have greater rights than local businesses? (this is t…

> But even if they're not impartial, is that necessarily bad here? Shouldn't the health of a countries' citizens take priority over the interests of shareholders? It is in CETA. > The nature of how trade deals are negotiated means we don't necessarily know who came up with it. Arbitral tribunals predate modern day FTAs by 150 years or more. If you have an interest in this you can easily read up on why they exist. > P…

When you bring an example for "people stick to negative attitudes even when the things improve or are not like another bad thing", and the example you bring is actually a really bad thing – out of state tribunals are fully unacceptable, also in the way CETA modeled them – then it is very valid to question that example. It could be that your whole observation is wrong, that people do not really stick to negative perspectives, but rather that you became unwilling to see them as valid.

Your Python3 example works for me. But CETA does not. It just does not support your point.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#74

Post by friendlygrammar »

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.

Every single trade agreement has something like ISDS and the entire purpose of these courts is to make sure people follow the agreement as it was written. It's not like you will be invaded if you break the rules of the agreement and ISDS rules against you, you will simply be kicked out if you don't follow the rules. Why do morons spread fear about this shit?

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#75

Post by mooreds »

Try not to move the goalposts. If someone compromises, acknowledge that and thank them for it, rather than saying "I am glad you finally saw the light, but now we need to take it a step further".

Brinkmanship rarely serves to get anything done, and burns bridges when it does actually accomplish something.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#76

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

onli wrote: post #73
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But even if they're not impartial, is that necessarily bad here? Shouldn't the health of a countries' citizens take priority over the interests of shareholders? It is in CETA. > The nature of how trade deals are negotiated means we don't necessarily know who came up with it. Arbitral tribunals predate modern day FTAs by 150 years or more. If you have an interest in this you can easily read up on why they exist. > P…

When you bring an example for "people stick to negative attitudes even when the things improve or are not like another bad thing", and the example you bring is actually a really bad thing – out of state tribunals are fully unacceptable, also in the way CETA modeled them – then it is very valid to question that example. It could be that your whole observation is wrong, that people do not really stick to negative persp…

If you consider where CETA started and where it ended, the transparent tribunal solved the initial complaints same as with the restrictions on when you can sue. That now the new tribunals are also not good enough is a moved goalpost.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#77

Post by jacobolus »

chucksmash wrote: post #65
hellofunk wrote: post #51

I have realized over the years that it is wise to be naturally skeptical of any opinion that is strong, either positive or negative. People who have an appreciation for gray areas, even if they ultimately do have a preference, tend to be a lot more emotionally balanced than those who maintain a very strong stance on something. I have noticed this so consistently over the last 15 years that I now consider it a fundame…

Espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds though. It's very easy for people to lose the thread of an argument if it is chock full of footnotes. I try to aim for "strong opinions, weakly held" - present a specific, actionable and strong position but be open to changing it if a better argument is made.

More to the point, nuanced opinions are at odds with clickbait/flamebait. If you want to get lots of attention and start a big internet fight, say the most outrageous aggressive thing you can, and argue sloppily, with just enough reasoning behind you to get the folks who agree with you to come fight for your side.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#78

Post by dorianm »

maxerickson wrote: post #41
dorianm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe python2 --enable-print-parentheses and other flags could have been useful to slowly detect future issues on python 2 code.

Python 2.6 has from __future__ import print_function. There the saving of implementation effort would be not supporting print statements in 3.0.

Nice it actually gives "SyntaxError: invalid syntax", but then it affects all the imported libraries so I still prefer the per-file way as a transition.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#79

Post by [deleted] »

friendlygrammar wrote: post #74
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.

Every single trade agreement has something like ISDS and the entire purpose of these courts is to make sure people follow the agreement as it was written. It's not like you will be invaded if you break the rules of the agreement and ISDS rules against you, you will simply be kicked out if you don't follow the rules. Why do morons spread fear about this shit?

[deleted]

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#80

Post by Mathnerd314 »

twic wrote: post #69
hiou wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that people who sit in the greys tend to be very worried about their public perception or have very little passion beyond maintaining personal comfort. The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. To me it's the difference between a leader and a worker bee.

> The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. Sometimes called "strong opinions, weakly held". I find this principle to be incoherent - if you understand something well enough to have a strong opinion, you understand it well enough to hold that opinion strongly. Holding strong opinions on things you don't understand that well seems…

The end result of knowing a lot about a topic is often that you can't make very strong statements about it; they always end up being something like "you're kind of right because XYZ, but also kind of wrong because XYZ". So the ideal situation is more like "weak opinions, strong actions".

Let's take the example of where someone yells "Duck!". Most likely, you weren't paying attention and you have no clue why they would yell such a thing. There is a high chance that it's some kind of prank. But, I argue, you should still duck anyway, because the potential benefits (not getting a concussion) outweigh the risks (looking stupid).

Similarly, if you are running a startup, you should prepared to pivot at the first sign of customer mismatch, but meanwhile the majority of work will be in one direction, and you should work on it passionately.

Post reply on HN