531–540 of 569 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Yeah, war is horrible, but we have to do it. " That's militarism.
I feel like that is overly simplistic. The world is not black and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on what.
The expertise you'd want for drilling an emergency rescue tunnel would be a combination of skills related to drilling roughly pipe-sized vertical shafts [1] (mining/oil services, or maybe the companies themselves; I don't know what the exact breakdown of work packages end up being) and remote (specifically mountainous and jungle, in this case) infrastructure and logistics, which is military or again mining/oil servic…
> There is no evidence presented that Musk, nor any of his companies, has any of this kind of useful expertise
https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/
> There is a world of difference between a tunnel-boring machine
Yeah it wasn't the machine he was offering but the expertise.
I get it, you've got it in for Musk. Fair enough, and I'm not out to hero worship him but lets be fair here - he did offer to help, and did so in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also agree, and would further that any relatively technically involved concept tends to contain the most complicated form of that topic, for example the wikipedia page on lift goes into some pretty intense detail. This is the natural result for a website written by users (those with lots of knowledge write it for others who have lots of knowledge). Even simple wikipedia is not immune to this, due to explaining the…
On the other hand, articles written by experts with full detail is much more useful to those already well versed in a given field. To use myself as an example: I would look elsewhere for computing or linguistics information if the articles were all written for beginners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term is a euphemism because "concentration camp" just means a camp with a high density of people. The fact that people know what they're really referring to doesn't mean that the term isn't a euphemism. After all, the whole point of a euphemism is that people know what is really meant. It's quite well known that "concentration camp" is not the correct term for the Nazi extermination camps.
Just like it's quite well known that "hacker" isn't the correct term for someone who breaks into computers. All that remains is the small detail of convincing the public at large that they are using the word wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only is that historically incorrect, but it's also a confession of a tolerance for detaining a specific population on ideological, non-criminal pretenses. "It's different when we do it."
Is that so? So by this amazing reasoning, we should refer to both types of camps using the same term. Since the correct term is evidently "extermination camps" (see surrounding thread), that's what they should be called. "Historically incorrect" is just a way of saying "presently correct". For instance "sensibility" is not a historically correct way of referring to a rational disposition. Historically, it meant what…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think it's okay to debase the chief of the rescue operation, ignore the advice he took from multiple teams, and cherry pick a personal email correspondence with one guy that basically just says "keep trying" just so Musk can dance around, yet again, people pointing out a potential PR stunt? I don't know what level of social ineptness is required to ignore not only the blatant insult against the chief, but Musk's…
This flamewar was ridiculous all around, but your account stands out as among the worst that made it so bad. This is the kind of thing HN exists to avoid, not perpetuate, so would you please not use HN this way in the future? As I posted elsewhere, all this angry arguing about Musk, pro or con, is as meaningful as angry arguing about Spider-Man. Since you're on the con side, I'll add that all you're doing by venting…
Not once have you called out people hurling personal insults towards people that have a minority opinion on this board, you've done the exact opposite.
You have implied my statements violate some aspect of HN, but you're going to need to specifically point out which statements do that. Dissent is not violation. You might not be interested in the dissent or critique but you can't use your position as moderator to quell it.
And if you're actually willing to be honest with yourself, or even devote some amount of diligent effort to pretend you're here to upload intellectual standards (despite discouraging dissenting opinions), you need to explain why blatant personal attacks are being allowed in threads you are most definitely reading.
> I'll add that all you're doing by venting like this is feeding the very PR you deplore,
Dang, that's a unsubstantiated view point and you know it. I'm honestly in shock you think that's a valid point to make (I'm not). Please explain how someone who gets public attention as a status quo is somehow actually being fueled by his critics. This talking point comes in up various contexts and is always meant to dismiss critique or even worse, victim blame. What the actual fuck are you on?
To recap since you most definitely again will side step any critique of moderating actions:
* What rules am I violating and where. A simple quote of my statement and the rule will suffice.
* Why are you framing the debate as if it's about a fictional character, when it's the CEO of a company who receives significant funding from U.S. tax payer dollars.
* How does critiquing a public figure's positive media coverage in a small thread somehow get the news to continue positive coverage?
It's very odd that this somehow made it to all the media headlines. Sure, a happy ending and so forth, but in a world of ~7.5B, including indescribable tragedies on a daily basis, it makes you wonder how they knew the daily drama would lead to such ad dollars.
How do we save x million children from poverty, disease, etc? Well, we need to mobilize huge trans-national organizations, we need to drive systemic changes, we need multi-year disease intervention programs, etc. How do we save a dozen kids trapped in a cave? If we put together some resources we can save all their lives within a week or so. Also, starving kids have traditionally motivated enormous outpourings of effo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The expertise you'd want for drilling an emergency rescue tunnel would be a combination of skills related to drilling roughly pipe-sized vertical shafts [1] (mining/oil services, or maybe the companies themselves; I don't know what the exact breakdown of work packages end up being) and remote (specifically mountainous and jungle, in this case) infrastructure and logistics, which is military or again mining/oil servic…
I think you're winging it. > There is no evidence presented that Musk, nor any of his companies, has any of this kind of useful expertise https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/ > There is a world of difference between a tunnel-boring machine Yeah it wasn't the machine he was offering but the expertise. I get it, you've got it in for Musk. Fair enough, and I'm not out to hero worship him but lets be fair here - he did off…
My contention isn't that Musk didn't make a good-faith offer to help, it's that Musk didn't have anything useful to offer. The end result is that would come across as something like this: https://xkcd.com/793/.
And Musk hat to brag about building a submarine. Don't want to call him an idiot, but as a start explore the caves of Sagada in the Philippines. Then talk about escaping in such a flooded cave with a tiny submarine. https://wikitravel.org/en/Sagada Diving in caves is dangerous as f.. and requires a special training. Not sure that cave diving is part of a Navy Seal training. I read the dive out of the cave takes five…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because your entire series of posts in this thread thus far have been nothing but questioning the motives of Elon Musk and his fans. Even if you're correct you're a hypocrite to complain about someone doing the same to you. And you're not really accomplishing your goal anyway. The only reason I knew that Musk was even involved in this whole mess was because of his detractors. You're basically signal boosting Musk wit…
>Because your entire series of posts in this thread thus far have been nothing but questioning the motives of Elon Musk It's not a question. I quite literally detailed what factually has happened. It isn't up for debate. He again, quite literally, decided to discredit and defame the lead of the rescue efforts in attempt to white wash several people calling him out on a very, very obvious PR stunt. They were halfway t…