491–500 of 532 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes the corpse that just got approved for a BTC ETF with an ETH ETF on the way and with multiple companies winning lawsuits against the SEC. But sure, because it's not on HN anymore it's a corpse.
The state of the crypto world is such that i genuinely can’t tell if you’re being satirical by using a bunch of jargon and acronyms that mean nothing in the order you used them, or not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can find a meta-analysis to prove anything you want. It is an extraordinary claim that wearing a mask properly does not reduce transmission of viral particles. You'll need to come up with a physical basis for this unintuitive hypothesis if you want to be taken seriously. Then you can point to studies whose results are explained by that hypothesis.
>You can find a meta-analysis to prove anything you want. I'm not trying to prove anything. I just rely on the judgement of domain experts. In this thread I cited Cochrane, The Lancet, SciAm and Science Magazine. If you have more reputable sources, please share them here. >You'll need to come up with a physical basis for this unintuitive hypothesis if you want to be taken seriously. It's only unintuitive if you stick…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm. I think what I'm going to do instead is relentlessly flag them. Check this out. It's barely on the front page, and has just 3 comments right now. How great is this post? How much more would I rather be reading comments on this than about Bari Weiss? Infinity times more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39235484 My son is a biochemist (interviewing for grad school slots right now , as in this actual evening ,…
[flagged]
Anyways, my point is: we have subject matter experts on virology on HN. They tend not to participate in COVID threads, which are invariably overheated and Weiss-ian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised by this thread too. I never flag anything because it's recorded on my profile, and I don't want stuff recorded on my profile that isn't useful to me. I only upvote submissions and comments that I intend to refer back to in the future. Upvotes are simply bookmarks to me, so my only tool for voting on the quality of conversation is downvotes. Which, apparently, I can't do for articles without spamming up…
Do you happen to remember if the misclicks were on mobile or not? I'm planning to add a confirmation screen to cut down on flags-by-misclick, but the current intention is to make it mobile-only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same with masks: Put a water hose on mist and spray someone with it. Then put a cloth over the nozzle and try to spray them. It's self evident yet people just could not grasp it.
Are you saying that face masks are not effective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
@dang Thank you for the info. One questions I do have–I would guess posts critical of HN/YC are going to get a log of flags and have not the best discussion. This has a side affect of biasing the home page to not have posts critical of HN/YC. Do you see this as a problem?
> posts critical of HN/YC are going to get a log of flags You can take this with a grain of salt as I'm obviously not the most neutral observer, but from everything I've seen (which at least is a lot!), yes they get a lot of flags, but they get even more upvotes. It's hard to say which side wins out in the tug-of-war. The tendency towards negativity that jsnell's comment describes is very real, and it's on the upvote…
@dang You did–thank you. I hope my question didn't come across as accusatory. This is a hard problem and, unfortunately for you, many of us enjoy discussion of difficult problems. What many of us may not see is you having to have the _same_ conversation over and over. Thanks again for your work. I don't envy your position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you both have made a mistake that seems all to common among people who are eager for a fight: namely, failing to recognize the distinction between someone who disagrees with your conclusion, and someone who believes your argument to be unsound. In reply to a comment about the inverse square law, you replied with arguments about droplet vs aerosol when neither concept was mentioned in the comment you were repl…
[flagged]
It's not about ability to follow "simple" conversations. It's about willingness to chase down numerous seemingly-unrelated references (that you didn't even bother providing links for) in order to discover the missing connections that you could have easily explained up front, without much a priori confidence that tracking down those references would satisfactorily fill in all the gaps.
On a forum with such a broad audience, you have to be more careful about assuming which things "everybody knows", and need to put more effort into fleshing out your arguments and explanations. Otherwise, it's hard for people who don't share your expertise or obsessions to tell when you're eliding important information because it can reasonably go without saying in some narrower community you're used to discussing the topic in, or whether you're presenting an argument that genuinely has serious holes in it. The latter happens often enough in discussions where I have expertise that I'm sure it's common when other subjects are involved.
I'm sure we'd both agree that HN has plenty of people who are not qualified to provide expert opinions on subjects like epidemiology. Whatever qualifications you you may have are not on display here, so users such as myself have to estimate your credibility based only on your comments. That evaulation will necessarily be a snap judgement, because there are too many trolls and misinformed people debating controversial subjects, and because someone who is knowledgeable and right but bad at explaining to people not already in the know isn't worth much more of my time and still isn't what people want to find when they come to HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> posts critical of HN/YC are going to get a log of flags You can take this with a grain of salt as I'm obviously not the most neutral observer, but from everything I've seen (which at least is a lot!), yes they get a lot of flags, but they get even more upvotes. It's hard to say which side wins out in the tug-of-war. The tendency towards negativity that jsnell's comment describes is very real, and it's on the upvote…
> Did I answer your question? @dang You did–thank you. I hope my question didn't come across as accusatory. This is a hard problem and, unfortunately for you, many of us enjoy discussion of difficult problems. What many of us may not see is you having to have the _same_ conversation over and over. Thanks again for your work. I don't envy your position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that while the major media sites generate a lot of noise, they also publish solid original articles from time to time, and we don't want to miss those. For that reason, they're downweighted, but not banned. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I ran my own client side script to strip out links to such articles. New computer, didn't copy the script over, and now I'm engaged in passive aggressive discussions over some guardian article. It's my own weakness of course, but I am definitely not the only one.
Some of the opinion sections get extra downweight - that might be helping a little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first two you listed were downranked by the flamewar detector. The last one was downranked by users. Admins didn't touch any of them. Note for everybody: can you guys please include the HN /item link if you're mentioning specific threads? That would be much more efficient and that way I can answer many more of people's questions.
Thanks for replying with added context, didn't really mean to add more to your plate with this!