121–130 of 299 posts
I'm more concerned about the fact I have no idea if the article and the HN comments are all AI generated or not. Can you tell if this comment is AI or not? What happens when social discourse is polluted by noise that is identical to signal? Is there anyone else out there?
If I reply yes, would you believe me? Am I even replying to a "you" right now, or was it a comment posted by a call to requests.get() by some AI agent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I want to criticize my government, I should use a ULID and not my legal name. Oh, hell, that's even older. Criticizing the government has always been fraught. The founders of the United States signed their death warrants, when they signed the Declaration.
A declaration of rebellion is more than criticism.
Also, depends on the organization. Some companies will fire your ass, or even find a way to sanction you, for talking back to the boss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I want to criticize my government, I should use a ULID and not my legal name. Oh, hell, that's even older. Criticizing the government has always been fraught. The founders of the United States signed their death warrants, when they signed the Declaration.
> Oh, hell, that's even older. So is slavery. Whether it’s reversion to the mean or an innovation by modern society is orthogonal to the question of “are we going downhill as a society.” We are, in this particular respect.
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to learn that “It Depends,” is a mantra for life. Experience has taught me how to understand the choices. When I was younger, I wasn’t able to understand, so everything was “binary.”
Failing to learn from history is a time-honored rite of passage. If we paid more attention to history, we’d see that our refusal to look at history is nothing new.
As I've said in other contexts, anyone can walk through a minefield, as long as they are patient, and don't mind walking past a lot of body parts.
I'm more concerned about the fact I have no idea if the article and the HN comments are all AI generated or not. Can you tell if this comment is AI or not? What happens when social discourse is polluted by noise that is identical to signal? Is there anyone else out there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll help make you look like someone who actually practices what they preach.
Ok, so your goal is not to share the governance of a country together? With your proposal, I make concessions (which, by all means, is the concession that I stop arguing, so that’s a general concession on the idea of negotiating together entirely), while you don’t make concessions, and then we don’t govern the country together, is it correct? Sounds like extremism to me. Either you get the power, either we do, but it…
You're sanctimoniously telling "us" to make milder accusations, then nearly immediately accusing us of being against law enforcement.
That is an entirely non-mild accusation, to the point that I consider it entirely discredits the rest of your comments because of how hypocritical it makes you look.
It's rhetoric that doesn't entitle you to the good faith engagement you supposedly want.
The Americans (†) who grew up with constant surveillance (social media, cameras everywhere) aim for ordinariness. The entire generation is less likely to express a non-consensus opinion than prior generations. For good reason: with everything being recorded and broadcast, personal errors are both accentuated and persist longer with no corresponding rise in upside. Bold opinions and creative ideas are simply too risky…
I think that's pretty arguable, and I'd want to see actual research. Certainly kids today are wildly more likely to embrace Stuff that Pisses Off their Elders than at any time since the 60's counterculture revolution. Think gender fluidity and pronoun choice, body modification, protest culture, rejection of career paths, embrace of the "neuro-atypical" as routine personality types... all that seems qualitatively but inarguably higher than when I was growing up 30-40 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This sort of vague, association-based reasoning can be used to prove anything. The US is a country with over 200 years of history, currently with hundreds of millions of citizens. You can cherry-pick whatever "visuals" from whatever "inflection points" you want, in order to prove whatever conclusion you want. For example, here is a thread on /r/AmerExit, a subreddit you would expect to have an anti-American bias, on…
Quoting Hateful Eight:
”So, I’m supposed to freeze to death ’cause you find it hard to believe?” - Chris Mannix
I can’t do anything about your skepticism.
There’s about 7-10 things I casually left out, no cherry picking in sight.
You can’t figure out that Lincoln was a great man, then what else is there to say? We’re taking decades of slavery if something didn’t compel him. Half the country still fought him, and half the country still partook in on going racism for over a hundred years, with zero let up since 1860s up to, literally, 2025.
I can’t help you with discernment.
I honestly love this as someone who never has a consistent identity in terms of the name I use online and not keeping a long history such as re-creating accounts whenever it is convenient. This is especially relevant on social media platforms where I don't want to feel like someone can just dig up something I've said or shared 5 years ago and use that against me. It also helps me stay myself without changing my behav…
For this you need to change more than just account. The way you write is your fingerprint. Concrete example with HN accounts was posted and tried several times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll help make you look like someone who actually practices what they preach.
Ok, so your goal is not to share the governance of a country together? With your proposal, I make concessions (which, by all means, is the concession that I stop arguing, so that’s a general concession on the idea of negotiating together entirely), while you don’t make concessions, and then we don’t govern the country together, is it correct? Sounds like extremism to me. Either you get the power, either we do, but it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what generation you belong to, but I was still in school when mobile phones that could record video became "good enough" that most of my peers in school had them, today I'm ~33. Ten years older. I'm from West-Europe and most people only got dumbphones around the time I was 18-19 (~2000 and mostly adults or 17-18 year olds). Phones with cameras became widespread quite a few years later. Even when I got an…
I think where I grew up (Sweden) it started with the Sony Ericsson "Walkman" family of phones that could record 320×240 videos I think or something like that, and I think I was around 15 when they became almost ubiquitous at school, so must have been around 2006/2007.
It's just not comparable to how it is today with phones with HD cameras that are constantly online.
I'm basically the last generation that didn't have this always-online social media in high school, and "going online" was an intentional thing, you logged in to MSN messenger and logged out a bit later. You saw a friend logged in, you said hi, chatted some, then said bye, and you or they logged off.