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

Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#21

Post by pohl »

Jun8 wrote: post #9
tokenadult wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't all users see deaded threads if they just turn on [showdead] in their user profiles?

Thanks for the tip, just turned it on and now I can see the question. There must be a lot of HNers like me who don't know this, though. I cannot understand the point of hiding deadened questions while still keeping the comments?

I cannot understand the point of hiding deadened questions while still keeping the comments?

It makes sense to me. If the users flag & kill a link submitted by spammers, the spammers get no value from it because, by default, a spider won't be able to follow the HN page to the URL the spammers wanted to promote.

But keeping the comments helps users at HN get a feel for how the article was initially received.

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#22

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

nkurz wrote: post #17

I'm not a moderator, but I flagged it because it's not a direction I want to see HN moving. "Ask HN" type posts are tricky --- I'm worried if we start by allowing posts that are intended solely as conversation starters, we may soon end up with a front page full of popular quotes, dumb jokes, and one-liners. Had it been a link to an external page I wouldn't have been moved to act. It may also be that I just didn't get…

To my mind it's the comments that should be flagged, not the item, if the item follows the guidelines but the comments don't contribute. I would like to see a small change to the site, wherein the "flag" link can be found on comments, no longer requiring clicking on "link" then on "flag".

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#23

Post by endtime »

nkurz wrote: post #17

I'm not a moderator, but I flagged it because it's not a direction I want to see HN moving. "Ask HN" type posts are tricky --- I'm worried if we start by allowing posts that are intended solely as conversation starters, we may soon end up with a front page full of popular quotes, dumb jokes, and one-liners. Had it been a link to an external page I wouldn't have been moved to act. It may also be that I just didn't get…

I flagged it for similar reasons. It's not the kind of content I want to see on HN, the comments sucked, and it really wasn't anywhere near as interesting or clever as it seemed to think it was.

The very fact that that post had a lot of comments with, collectively, a lot of upvotes is proof that HN is not what it used to be. :/

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#24

Post by underover »

nkurz wrote: post #17

I'm not a moderator, but I flagged it because it's not a direction I want to see HN moving. "Ask HN" type posts are tricky --- I'm worried if we start by allowing posts that are intended solely as conversation starters, we may soon end up with a front page full of popular quotes, dumb jokes, and one-liners. Had it been a link to an external page I wouldn't have been moved to act. It may also be that I just didn't get…

"It may also be that I just didn't get it. At a glance, it looked like a semantic game rather than a worthy paradox."

Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items?

"I was probably also influenced by the quality of the discussion."

Wouldn't down-voting the particular comment(s) you don't like be more appropriate?

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#25

Post by jodrellblank »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #5
iamwil wrote: post #3

I can't even see the original multiple choice question. What was it?

If you choose an answer at random, what is the probability of being right: A:25%, B:50%, C:0%, D:25%.

If I'm stated to be picking an answer at random, in what sense am I choosing?

This seems like an observation about either pointers or Meta-questions. If I pick an answer to {an unspecified thing}, what is the probability of being right?. Choose A/B/C/D.

First, I have to assume the {unspecified thing} is your question itself. Then model a clone of your question, then based on the answers to the clone model, answer your real question. Then I have to make some assumptions about the biases in my random selector (i.e. it has none and picks each option on average 25% of the time). Then I have to make some assumptions about whether one of the answers is right and three are wrong, or if more than one can be right.

If I assume one is right and three are wrong, then A and D are ruled out, so the right answer must be B or C. C can't be right, so it must be B, so my chance of picking "B" and getting the right answer is 25%. So I answer your real question either A or D.

If I assume that A or D could be right, then I assume B and C are wrong and get a 50% chance of picking correctly, so I answer your real question B.

I guess I could carry on and say "if no answer is right and I always pick one of the four, then I have no chance of answering correctly and answer your meta-question with C" and then see if I can sum up all the potential assumption answers and see if it resolves to a most likely sum-over-histories style answer.

But that sounds like work.

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#26

Post by georgieporgie »

underover wrote: post #24
nkurz wrote: post #17

I'm not a moderator, but I flagged it because it's not a direction I want to see HN moving. "Ask HN" type posts are tricky --- I'm worried if we start by allowing posts that are intended solely as conversation starters, we may soon end up with a front page full of popular quotes, dumb jokes, and one-liners. Had it been a link to an external page I wouldn't have been moved to act. It may also be that I just didn't get…

"It may also be that I just didn't get it. At a glance, it looked like a semantic game rather than a worthy paradox." Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items? "I was probably also influenced by the quality of the discussion." Wouldn't down-voting the particular comment(s) you don't like be more appropriate?

> Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items?

I don't know the submission volume of HN, but I'd guess it's sufficient that a glance is all one can afford.

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#27

Post by jodrellblank »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #20
jodrellblank wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm stated to be picking an answer at random, in what sense am I choosing?

I can't tell if you're trying to be serious and adding something to the discussion, or if you're just being snarky. I'll assume you're being serious. Selecting an answer at random, in my dialect of English, can be said to be choosing. In my dialect of English "to choose" does not necessarily imply the exercise of free will and decision. Thus, "to choose at random" makes sense, and might be regarded as "to select at r…

I was being serious - if I answer based on "randomly" then I might get one answer, if I answer based on "thinking it through and trying to work something out", I might get another.

But I've expanded my reply so it's less relevant now. [edit: oops, or replied again].

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#28

Post by Retric »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #22
nkurz wrote: post #17

I'm not a moderator, but I flagged it because it's not a direction I want to see HN moving. "Ask HN" type posts are tricky --- I'm worried if we start by allowing posts that are intended solely as conversation starters, we may soon end up with a front page full of popular quotes, dumb jokes, and one-liners. Had it been a link to an external page I wouldn't have been moved to act. It may also be that I just didn't get…

To my mind it's the comments that should be flagged, not the item, if the item follows the guidelines but the comments don't contribute. I would like to see a small change to the site, wherein the "flag" link can be found on comments, no longer requiring clicking on "link" then on "flag".

A paradox is not an interesting thing; it's just a sign that your assumptions are wrong. But, it was not even an interesting paradox.

1) "random process" was undefined.

2) There was no limitation given as to choosing nothing or more than one answer.

3) At best the discussion might have been amusing, but that's just trolling IMO.

PS: I thought about it for a while before flagging it.

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#29

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

georgieporgie wrote: post #26
underover wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It may also be that I just didn't get it. At a glance, it looked like a semantic game rather than a worthy paradox." Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items? "I was probably also influenced by the quality of the discussion." Wouldn't down-voting the particular comment(s) you don't like be more appropriate?

> Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items? I don't know the submission volume of HN, but I'd guess it's sufficient that a glance is all one can afford.

It might be argued that a glance is enough to move on and ignore it, but not enough to flag it. Flagging it implies that it's been assessed and found inappropriate, not simply that you didn't find it interesting.

Re: Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...

#30

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

Retric wrote: post #28
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my mind it's the comments that should be flagged, not the item, if the item follows the guidelines but the comments don't contribute. I would like to see a small change to the site, wherein the "flag" link can be found on comments, no longer requiring clicking on "link" then on "flag".

A paradox is not an interesting thing; it's just a sign that your assumptions are wrong. But, it was not even an interesting paradox. 1) "random process" was undefined. 2) There was no limitation given as to choosing nothing or more than one answer. 3) At best the discussion might have been amusing, but that's just trolling IMO. PS: I thought about it for a while before flagging it.

  > A paradox is not an interesting thing.
  > It's just a sign that your assumptions are wrong.
That's an interesting position to take - Ray Smullyan might disagree with you. When I was discussing it with him the conclusion I came to is that there is something deep in a good paradox that helps us understand logic, math, thinking and reason.

That's not true for unexpected results, which are often incorrectly called paradoxes, but it does seem to be true for real paradoxes. They have led to major innovations and advances in math.

The discussion I had with Ray was years ago now, and I don't remember the details, but I think you are mistaken in dismissing paradoxes as "just a sign that your assumptions are wrong."

Additionally, all the objections you raise can be clarified and the problem made more precise, losing the pithiness, but without losing the paradoxical nature. "Random process" can easily be defined clearly, and you can add the limitation about choosing exactly one answer.

Post reply on HN