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

Please read the paper before you comment

buttondown.email

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 341 posts

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#331

Post by skrebbel »

TT3351 wrote: post #329
skrebbel wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly comment sections on the internet are a cesspool A bit offtopic, but when YouTube first added comments, they quickly got into cesspool territory, exactly like you describe. However, these days, I find myself really enjoying YouTube comments quite often. Is this just me? Am I just watching more happy happy joy joy videos these days or did YT comments go from "the internet's awfulest" to "pretty neat" somehow…

I think Google works really hard to surface comments that they know a user will interact with.

That would work best if they'd surface all the vitriol, right? People love to interact with vitriol.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#332

Post by skrebbel »

strogonoff wrote: post #269
skrebbel wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly comment sections on the internet are a cesspool A bit offtopic, but when YouTube first added comments, they quickly got into cesspool territory, exactly like you describe. However, these days, I find myself really enjoying YouTube comments quite often. Is this just me? Am I just watching more happy happy joy joy videos these days or did YT comments go from "the internet's awfulest" to "pretty neat" somehow…

Don’t forget countless horrific things content moderators have to read and see so that you can enjoy your experience.

We couldn't do without the epsilons.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#333

Post by ookdatnog »

Tainnor wrote: post #328
ookdatnog wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think mismatched-axioms misunderstandings happen all the time and it really is a useful mental model to ask people about their axioms. In fact, I think it's even helpful when people are arguing in bad faith. If they have to state their axioms you pin them down and there are then at least some things they can't redefine on the fly. I think even really high profile debates suffer from mismatched-axioms misunderstandi…

I don't doubt that the guy with a maths PhD understood the mathematical content. And I would even go farther than to say that many disagreements are based on different axioms. Many disagreements are even due to different definitions (such as "free will"). I think that was one of the key points of late Wittgenstein. So yes, in many cases, laying out the assumptions carefully is a good idea, I agree. I just didn't thin…

Yes, and perhaps more importantly, Twitter seems like the wrong forum to bring up such a subtle point. Especially in a political debate where you have hordes of people who will simultaneously not understand what you're saying and be very eager to turn your argument into a viral caricature.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#334

Post by rjkennedy98 »

This is a good article and it would be great if people felt an obligation read the source papers more, but the nature of sensationalist journalism and gamified social media means in all practicality they never will. The journalist gets views by writing stories that fit into an emotional narrative regardless of the actual facts. Social media gives users reinforcement for telling people what they want to hear. That echo chamber drowns out everything else. There is almost no room for nuance anymore.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#335

Post by Voliokis »

Max-q wrote: post #93
cgrealy wrote: post #48

Some years ago, Ars Technica ran a story on guns. https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lot... About halfway through a one-page article was this quote. "If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first." Sure enough, there were about 3 pages of comments before someone mentioned bananas. Read the…

NRK Beta, the tech lab of the Norwegian broadcasting corporation, make you take a quiz about the article before you are allowed to comment. I really like that idea.

Let's go further. Make it a quiz about the general topic too. If you don't have any fundamental knowledge about a topic, your opinion shouldn't get a platform for it to spread.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#336

Post by C4stor »

afarrell wrote: post #323
C4stor wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[1] says "Craving and chewing ice (pagophagia) is often associated with iron deficiency,", not what you claimed which is the opposite. As far as I can see, there's no indication on this page as to how frequently iron deficiency leads to ice chewing.

> which is the opposite Huh? Are you saying that my source claims that chewing ice causes anemia?

No ^^ Your source says the chewing ice is a known symptom of anemia, but does not say how prevalent this symptom is in anemia-affected people.

So from that source you can't conclude that anemia "often" leads to chewing ice, it may very well be quite rare.

Abstractly, "A is often a consequence B" does not logically goes to "B often leads to A".

To use an extreme exemple, crossing paths with polar bears (chewing ice) is generally linked with dieing (anemia), but death is quite rarely caused by crossing paths with polar bears.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#337

Post by licebmi__at__ »

akg_67 wrote: post #243
levosmetalo wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see HN in the same way. It happens so often that HN discussion is much better that article itself that I go there first, and RTFA only if the discussion makes me want to read it. For this article, I tried to read it after reading a few comments, but got bored.

The readability of lot of web articles tend to be quite poor as they are written from viewpoint of SEO rather than readability. I rarely can read complete web article unless it was published in a paper magazine or newspaper. HN used to be good. Recently, I have seen groupthink taking hold, hostility toward dissension, and opinions are not that knowledgable and educated on controversial topics. The HN quality of discu…

Heh, I remember maybe a decade ago, some e-magazine in spanish which marketed itself as a truly cultural experience, with long articles on interesting cultural topics. It was so badly formatted for SEO that it was so painful to read which probably made people think that the cultural themes were more difficult than they actually were.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#338

Post by compiler-guy »

Fnoord wrote: post #327
compiler-guy wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although it's point is good, I hate this test because--at least in most versions I have seen--nothing tells you to skip questions 1-9. The directions say, "Read all the questions first." OK fine. Then question 10 says, "Just write your name on the paper and turn it over." But why should question 10 be the only one you follow? "Read all the questions" is the only direction you have. There is never a "skip 1-9", except…

The instruction is very clear and precise. It says to read all the questions. Not to answer them (or answer them right away). Therefore, if you follow the instruction, you end up reading question #10 following the process, within the time it takes to read all the questions. Now, that instruction might seem controversial, but it really isn't. If you have the time, its a good idea to read content well, before dealing w…

So, after you have read all of the instructions, why follow the instruction in question 10 instead of starting at the beginning?

I suppose you are saying that no one ever told you to actually take the quiz, but that is pretty stupid if you follow that in every other situation. It's a set up, designed to make people look stupid.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#339

Post by Fnoord »

compiler-guy wrote: post #338
Fnoord wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The instruction is very clear and precise. It says to read all the questions. Not to answer them (or answer them right away). Therefore, if you follow the instruction, you end up reading question #10 following the process, within the time it takes to read all the questions. Now, that instruction might seem controversial, but it really isn't. If you have the time, its a good idea to read content well, before dealing w…

So, after you have read all of the instructions, why follow the instruction in question 10 instead of starting at the beginning? I suppose you are saying that no one ever told you to actually take the quiz, but that is pretty stupid if you follow that in every other situation. It's a set up, designed to make people look stupid.

The lesson is that sometimes patience pays off. If I have the time (and I don't like to stress myself), I always have an overview of the whole picture, in this case the questions. For example, if I have to sign a document, I first read it through once, and then another time to act. It might seem like lost time, but actually you have a much better understanding of the content.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#340

Post by afarrell »

C4stor wrote: post #336
afarrell wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is the opposite Huh? Are you saying that my source claims that chewing ice causes anemia?

No ^^ Your source says the chewing ice is a known symptom of anemia, but does not say how prevalent this symptom is in anemia-affected people. So from that source you can't conclude that anemia "often" leads to chewing ice, it may very well be quite rare. Abstractly, "A is often a consequence B" does not logically goes to "B often leads to A". To use an extreme exemple, crossing paths with polar bears (chewing ice) i…

Okay....yes. Yes that is a correct statement about logic.

It also seems to miss the central point of my metaphor.

Post reply on HN