301–310 of 311 posts
Human stupidity is a bigger threat than AI hallucination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You publicly work for a SF based company, the first google result for Tom Howard Ycombinator is a public profile maintained by you which claims that you are based in San Francisco. It's also noteworthy that you choose to live in one of the 27 states that still has the death penalty. >Even if you're right it’s irrelevant I think you made it relevant with personal attacks like "barbaric". There's really nothing wrong w…
This is an unhinged ad hominem attack and none of it changes whether the original comment breached the guidelines. Idealizing killing of people is never okay on HN and we've been consistent about that for as long as I can remember. Even if your ad hom attack was relevant: where my LinkedIn says I am based says nothing about how many people my “tax dollars have killed” or what I personally support. Digging up limited…
Do you see any fighting words from me? No? That's because there were none. It is downright hilarious of you to accuse me of an "ad hominem attack".
You call me barbaric and unhinged because you find my opinion unpleasant. You turned the conversation to personal attacks, and you chose to make my criticism of your person relevant to the conversation.
Of course it is relevant that you, the person accusing me of being barbaric, are someone who voluntarily hands out their money to fund executions.
Maybe consider whether or not this approach to moderation truly helps you reach the goal you desire. You could equally well have asked me to use less inflammatory wording without resorting to irrelevant personal attacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an unhinged ad hominem attack and none of it changes whether the original comment breached the guidelines. Idealizing killing of people is never okay on HN and we've been consistent about that for as long as I can remember. Even if your ad hom attack was relevant: where my LinkedIn says I am based says nothing about how many people my “tax dollars have killed” or what I personally support. Digging up limited…
> This is an unhinged ad hominem attack Do you see any fighting words from me? No? That's because there were none. It is downright hilarious of you to accuse me of an "ad hominem attack". You call me barbaric and unhinged because you find my opinion unpleasant. You turned the conversation to personal attacks, and you chose to make my criticism of your person relevant to the conversation. Of course it is relevant that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the article left something out, the only possible evidence they had was the wrong username. It did. The evidence against him were the messages sent to the girl and the unusual username. It's not like it was John_Smith. It was fairly unique. They couldn't even find evidence that this person used Kik at the time of the crime. The lack of digital evidence is not proof of innocence. It's not proof of anything eith…
If you knew anything about the Skyrim community you would know that it is one of the most generic names possible on the level of John_Smith, possibly even more generic. It is kind of like naming yourself after a meme or "lol".
Not on a separate social media platform, where it was apparently unique enough that it was only used twice. Probably because most of the userbase is younger than the game and would never have played it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the article left something out, the only possible evidence they had was the wrong username. It did. The evidence against him were the messages sent to the girl and the unusual username. It's not like it was John_Smith. It was fairly unique. They couldn't even find evidence that this person used Kik at the time of the crime. The lack of digital evidence is not proof of innocence. It's not proof of anything eith…
It’s not an unusual username, it is actually quite unoriginal, there are probably thousands of users with variations of the same name. It is the name of the headline magic ability in Skyrim, which is probably among the top ten most popular videogames of the last 25 years.
It is the name of the headline magic ability in Skyrim, which is probably among the top ten most popular videogames of the last 25 years.
That can be true and it can still be the case that most people that have played video games have never heard of it, especially on a teen-focused social media platform where most of the users are younger than the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the article left something out, the only possible evidence they had was the wrong username. It did. The evidence against him were the messages sent to the girl and the unusual username. It's not like it was John_Smith. It was fairly unique. They couldn't even find evidence that this person used Kik at the time of the crime. The lack of digital evidence is not proof of innocence. It's not proof of anything eith…
> It was fairly unique. Wrong. And in any case, if they had looked at the message history of the account name that they used to track him down and that was entered into evidence at the trial, they would not have found any criminal messages. > The lack of digital evidence is not proof of innocence. Misplaced burden of proof. > Lawyers aren't generally known for their grasp of computer technology. Good lawyers are know…
The defendant does not have a burden of proof. My point was that the lack of incriminating messages doesn't prove anything either way, which addresses your previous paragraph about not finding criminal messages.
Good lawyers are known for mastering the relevant details of a wide range of subjects.
LOL. Some of the best lawyers don't even know how to turn on their computers and still dictate their notes to their human secretaries. At any rate, your statement is quite false. The issue here was not that the lawyer failed to master a minute technical detail that everyone missed the first time around, its that such a minute technical detail ended up being material because there were no technical safeguards to catch the typo. This is another horrific situation that can be directly traced to the programmers being lazy and not wanting to burden themselves with "unnecessary" features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is an unhinged ad hominem attack Do you see any fighting words from me? No? That's because there were none. It is downright hilarious of you to accuse me of an "ad hominem attack". You call me barbaric and unhinged because you find my opinion unpleasant. You turned the conversation to personal attacks, and you chose to make my criticism of your person relevant to the conversation. Of course it is relevant that…
My opening comment politely asked you to “use less inflammatory language”. My characterizations have been of your conduct not your self. If you had anything of substance to say you wouldn’t keep fixating on where I live. As I’ve said, if you want a website where it’s fine to say someone “deserves a bullet in the head”, go somewhere else. This isn’t the place for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This case can be the best example of human hallucinations. They made a mistake in username, and assumed everything after that was facts. All that had to be proved was the person is the owner of the mistaken username.
There should be/does anyone know if there is a name for this? When you truth-check exactly once and then just blindly runaway after that? Edit: Apparently in medicine there exists the concept of "premature closure", where the carer settles on a diagnosis early and stops considering other possibilities. Seems like a decent match?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the article left something out, the only possible evidence they had was the wrong username. It did. The evidence against him were the messages sent to the girl and the unusual username. It's not like it was John_Smith. It was fairly unique. They couldn't even find evidence that this person used Kik at the time of the crime. The lack of digital evidence is not proof of innocence. It's not proof of anything eith…
> It was fairly unique. Wrong. And in any case, if they had looked at the message history of the account name that they used to track him down and that was entered into evidence at the trial, they would not have found any criminal messages. > The lack of digital evidence is not proof of innocence. Misplaced burden of proof. > Lawyers aren't generally known for their grasp of computer technology. Good lawyers are know…
> At any rate, your statement is quite false.
No it isn't, of course.