Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media • Hacker News Board

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#541

Post by Frampy » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 4:56 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #539

Frampy wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes what a remarkable cavalcade of coincidence your life is. And why look at that, you were so busy marvelling over your ability to engage left wing dialogue in the past five years without ever hearing of dog whistles that you plum forgot to address anything I said! What a lark. Let's just pretend I said SA's writing is full of dog whistles and didn't say 'dog whistles, aka coded language, is entirely unfalsifiable a…

> Look up the definition of dog whistles then, and discover they mean 'talking in coded language that means one thing to an outside audience and another to the inner circle'. I wasn't pretending. You said what I described is called a "dog whistle". I have no problem with using that phrase.

Very well, perhaps now you have been enlightened you would care to address my point?

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#542

Post by tripletao » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 5:22 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #540

tripletao wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't usually comment on political topics like this one, but here's a thread where someone corrected my oversimplified view of the Fed's current bond market interventions. It took several levels of replies for me to understand what they meant, and I later corrected someone else who continued to argue for my initial (and misleading) view: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421917 Close enough? Or in a different…

It's easy to reach certainty that the conversation you're engaged in has no hope of becoming productive, far easier than reaching any kind of (ugh) "epistemic" certainty. It's helpful to recognize that; otherwise, you're at risk of being the annoying dude in the meme sitting behind a card table on a college quad, "change my mind".

I'm afraid that you're probably right. So what should I have done differently? What could have changed pvg's mind, or at least generated something like a respectful and substantive discussion in which they explained the reasons for their differing views (which you'll see that I did manage with several other posters who disagree with me in this thread)?

A snarky original post like the one I wrote here starts from a negative interaction with someone who disagrees, which I agree is bad. You'll find mostly more nuanced comments in my history, including those about semi-political topics like the coronavirus; but those mostly get no replies at all.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#543

Post by memexy » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 5:28 AM UTC

Frampy wrote: post #541

memexy wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look up the definition of dog whistles then, and discover they mean 'talking in coded language that means one thing to an outside audience and another to the inner circle'. I wasn't pretending. You said what I described is called a "dog whistle". I have no problem with using that phrase.

Very well, perhaps now you have been enlightened you would care to address my point?

Which of your points do you want addressed?

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#544

Post by tripletao » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

adamsea wrote: post #533

tripletao wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New Yorker reporter said "creditable reason". "Creditable" usually means "somewhat praiseworthy" so it's weird phrasing; but I interpret the praise as going to the reporter for finding it, implying that the reason would be good. Or perhaps the author actually meant "credible" (or the alternative definition of "creditable" that's a near-synonym), directly stating that it's justified. Either way, I don't see any im…

So, creditable also can mean “worthy of belief” which I think is more relevant. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creditable But the very fact we are arguing over the meaning of a single word is, I think, kind of a signal of an anti-pattern, so to speak. It’s like bikeshedding over a single line of code. Sure, in certain cases that single line might be super important (part of an algorithm, performance criti…

That's the definition I meant by "or the alternative definition of 'creditable' that's a near-synonym [for 'credible']". I agree that might be what the author intended, but I don't see how that would imply the negative coverage would be unwarranted? If the reason is worthy of belief, then doesn't that mean it's probably a good reason, and the coverage is warranted?

Though I agree that judging a long piece of writing by a few quotes out of context is generally bad--indeed, I'm surprised no one suggested that I've done the same thing to the New Yorker reporter that Alexander was afraid the NYT would do to him (though with no foreseeable risk to the reporter's job).

I've tried not to--those sentences seemed particularly egregious to me, but broadly within the tone of the overall piece. Human attention behind limited, I'm afraid any discussion of a long piece of writing must either talk about subjective feelings and impressions (where it's hard to identify the reasons for those different feelings), or focus on a tiny subset at the cost you correctly note.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#545

Post by jeremysalwen » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 6:05 AM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #412

jeremysalwen wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not for all practical purposes public. I'm very tech literate and google-literate, and I have tried multiple times to find his name, and was unable to.

Um, I know his name but by accident. Why are you trying to track this guy down?

Pure curiosity. I tried it a few years ago, I think because he posted something about keeping his identity secret and I was curious how hard it was to find. Then again with these recent articles I did some basic searching.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#546

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 7:50 AM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #542

tptacek wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to reach certainty that the conversation you're engaged in has no hope of becoming productive, far easier than reaching any kind of (ugh) "epistemic" certainty. It's helpful to recognize that; otherwise, you're at risk of being the annoying dude in the meme sitting behind a card table on a college quad, "change my mind".

I'm afraid that you're probably right. So what should I have done differently? What could have changed pvg's mind, or at least generated something like a respectful and substantive discussion in which they explained the reasons for their differing views (which you'll see that I did manage with several other posters who disagree with me in this thread)? A snarky original post like the one I wrote here starts from a ne…

[deleted]

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#547

Post by Frampy » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 7:53 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #543

Frampy wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well, perhaps now you have been enlightened you would care to address my point?

Which of your points do you want addressed?

Lol, of course. You forgot dog whistles, now you've forgotten how to read - at this rate if you keep talking to me you might forget how to lie about wanting good faith discussion. Next thing you know you'll forget how to be a totalitarian altogether - and you will end up cancelled!

Regardless, I have amply proven your disingenuous nature, so fill your boots chum, pretend to be stupid all you like.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#548

Post by mst » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 10:29 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #485

mst wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry that you consider genuine attempts to get real answers to be trolling with no explanation as to twhy. I continue to stand by my choice to invite people to read the entire thread and draw their own conclusions.

Don't apologize. Stop using such tactics. I already pointed out what you did, how you did it, and why it was disingenuous. If you were sincere you would not have quoted me out of context, you would not have tried to bias the group opinion, and you would not have shifted the blame as you are doing now. You should just stop because you are no longer making any points.

"I am sorry", in this case, was meant in its plain meaning of "I feel sorrow about this being the case".

Not everything is a tactic. Sometimes people just mean what they say.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#549

Post by adamsea » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 1:14 PM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #544

adamsea wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, creditable also can mean “worthy of belief” which I think is more relevant. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creditable But the very fact we are arguing over the meaning of a single word is, I think, kind of a signal of an anti-pattern, so to speak. It’s like bikeshedding over a single line of code. Sure, in certain cases that single line might be super important (part of an algorithm, performance criti…

That's the definition I meant by "or the alternative definition of 'creditable' that's a near-synonym [for 'credible']". I agree that might be what the author intended, but I don't see how that would imply the negative coverage would be unwarranted? If the reason is worthy of belief, then doesn't that mean it's probably a good reason, and the coverage is warranted? Though I agree that judging a long piece of writing…

We gotta agree to disagree man.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#550

Post by adamsea » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #399

fmajid wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Alexander only recently moved to the Bay Area, and as a clinician, he is very unlikely to be associated with any tech companies, although many techies read his blog, of course. The NYT behavior here was despicable. Not quite Wen-Ho Lee yellow-baiting despicable, but despicable nonetheless. The New Yorker shares the same envious hatred of tech companies most of the New York media scene seems to evince, not surpr…

>The New Yorker shares the same envious hatred of tech companies most of the New York media scene seems to evince, not surprisingly as their livelihoods are evaporating. You really got to love how thin-skinned all the tech bros here are if they even receive the tiniest amount of scrutiny. You legitimately sound like Donald Trump ranting about the "failing New York Times", mocking people's livelihood evaporating? What…

Not sure why parent comment is grayed out; seems like it’s more for its viewpoint than anything else. Not that different in tone or broad assertions from lots of other posts in this thread.