121–130 of 220 posts
[flagged]
Covid/vaccine related questions should best be left to topics concerning large scale studies, not a single tragic instance.
[flagged]
Because it's a o e sided question. Why not also question if he was infected by corona virus? You know the virus that has a documented effect on the health of the heart. And the moment both groups are pretty large, the vaccinated and the least once infected with corona but the virus is never a suspect in certain groups. Blood clots, myocarditis etc. is only ever attributed to the vaccine and not the virus.
This class of statements, or rhetoric generalizations which cannot be read as a logical statement (where 'only ever' is strict), should be avoided. False universal statements add nothing to the style - they may easily detract -, they are gratuitous, they are offensive, and technically they clash with the requirement of respect which seems to be implicit in the guidelines.
I can reassure you: yes, some of us wondered of what could have been the chance that blood circulation affecting diseases may have impacted, and also of the chances of other factors, and also of the weakness of such estimations, and finally of the limited time these vague thoughts deserve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like some. Not all. I'm afraid I fail to get enthusiastic about knowing how they were done, sorry.
If there was one thing that I thought all HN users had in common it was the appreciation for a tremendous intellectual gift and better yet, doing no evil with it. I guess you proved me wrong.
I often come back to this video of Kim's process, which is a delight, and now only adds weight to the loss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmqFbgKWoao “When I decide what to draw, I think about what. And then I create another me in my mind. Another me, a.k.a. mini-me, will be travelling through the space of what I want to draw. … Now, I send a bunch of my mini-mes all over the space to find the best suited location…
It reminds me of Nikola Tesla, "Before I put a sketch on paper, the whole idea is worked out mentally. In my mind I change the construction, make improvements, and even operate the device. Without ever having drawn a sketch I can give the measurements of all parts to workmen, and when completed all these parts will fit, just as certainly as though I had made the actual drawings. It is immaterial to me whether I run m…
One thing about working this way is it's very frustrating to people who operate by documenting in real time, in something like org or Notion. I am not a note taker and I never really have been. I actually find my thinking gets cloudier when I try to document something I personally find "intuitive".
One example of this clash of styles was recently with a manager where he asked me, directly, how could I know how to design something if I hadn't written out the structure yet? How would I know to build space for a feature if I hadn't documented all the features that were required? I told him the requirements should be known, already, by anyone who was thinking about this problem... that for instance anyone who bothers to even imagine a "Create" action would automatically, symmetrically, imagine a "Delete" action and budget for that. He didn't agree and made me write it out anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a o e sided question. Why not also question if he was infected by corona virus? You know the virus that has a documented effect on the health of the heart. And the moment both groups are pretty large, the vaccinated and the least once infected with corona but the virus is never a suspect in certain groups. Blood clots, myocarditis etc. is only ever attributed to the vaccine and not the virus.
> Blood clots, myocarditis etc. is only ever attributed to This class of statements, or rhetoric generalizations which cannot be read as a logical statement (where 'only ever' is strict), should be avoided. False universal statements add nothing to the style - they may easily detract -, they are gratuitous, they are offensive, and technically they clash with the requirement of respect which seems to be implicit in th…
These groups only the vaccine as the culprit even if someone dies by accident
[flagged]
Because they're already jumping to a biased conclusion by asking the question. Heart disease was a top killer before Covid existed. For all we know he ate poorly but still looked fit. Or had a genetic condition. So why even ask that question here? Covid/vaccine related questions should best be left to topics concerning large scale studies, not a single tragic instance.
You «jump[] to a biased conclusion» only when the conclusion is held - which you cannot conclude. The poster should keep it open: you should do the same. As you are mandated by the guidelines and the constraint against weak interpretations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me of Nikola Tesla, "Before I put a sketch on paper, the whole idea is worked out mentally. In my mind I change the construction, make improvements, and even operate the device. Without ever having drawn a sketch I can give the measurements of all parts to workmen, and when completed all these parts will fit, just as certainly as though I had made the actual drawings. It is immaterial to me whether I run m…
I often operate this way, that I design and build and run or use constructions in my mind before I feel comfortable committing to sitting down at the computer and making it, or sketching it. I've been made aware, recently, that some people can't picture things in their mind, rotate them, apply physics to them, etc. One thing about working this way is it's very frustrating to people who operate by documenting in real…
Sure, some things come in pairs. Some requirements are immutable and obvious. That's not the interesting part of a design, and if that's all it lists, then yes, you can probably skip writing a ton of detail. (Although current and future team mates are usually appreciative of knowing how something was designed, instead of just having to read the code - it makes it easier to distinguish mistake from intent)
But the meat of a design is in the trade-offs you made, in the choices that could reasonably go several ways. And no, for any reasonably complex system, you can't hold all of those in your head. And worse, if it's a trade-off, your weights may be wrong - your work is part of a larger effort, and you might miss constraints that seem "outside your area" but play into it.