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

Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 264 posts

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#181

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mmooss wrote: post #177
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideas without sunshine tend to rot and fester. That might be why there are so many obviously stupid ones these days. This was the thesis behind e.g. Twitter. I’m not sure it’s panned out. Ideas need sunshine, but a seedling also does better in a nursery.

Interesting point. While I agree that the outcome has been bad or really catastrophic, I'm not sure it's the same cause. Certainly ideas from positions of power need openeness and sunshine, speaking very generally. The problem on social media is the flood of crap that buries everything else, and nobody can keep up - the sunshine effect is overwhelmed.

> ideas from positions of power need openeness and sunshine, speaking very generally

Very generally. Transparency also incentivises grandstanding; you're always speaking to the audience, never to your counterpart.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#182

Post by JumpCrisscross »

manquer wrote: post #125
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we are describing is equivalent to having a public conversation in the street in front of your home where you can see them having it Still rude, but nothing more.

> Rude, inappropriate, presumptuous, offensive . All degrees of the same thing ? And the degree in the eyes of the subject

Your argument circles back to why the Chatham House Rule is gaining popularity. It enforces the figurative walls of your neighbour's house.

> degree in the eyes of the subject

Yes. The people actually having the conversation.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#183

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mmooss wrote: post #67
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not hurting the feelings of people who do and work on bad things Yes, the Chatham House Rule is practically designed to exclude people who have an immutable black-and-white worldview.

How so? It would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things.

> would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things

Based on what? If anything, baseless grandstanding is incentivised by an audience.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#184

Post by robocat »

echelon wrote: post #148
dcrazy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easy solution to what? I’m saying lack of like individual line-item attribution is a feature.

It feels incompatible with how the rest of the legal framework works. You can be recorded in public. In most of the US states you can be recorded in private so long as the one recording is a party to the conversation. Why does California do this separate weird thing? It doesn't feel like my rights should go away when I cross into your state. It feels like a glitch.

A glitch that can be fixed by inserting a clause into the other solution mentioned: an NDA contract

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#185

Post by saagarjha »

rhasterx wrote: post #158
david-gpu wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I will put every person in precisely one out of two boxes at my discretion, and they will be happy about it". Example: "I believe there are two kinds of people in the world, the righteous and the despicable. You belong with the despicable, I decided. If you disagree, you are woke".

The amount of inferences and insinuations you draw is a perfect example of why the Chatham House Rule is needed. I wonder how biologists discuss the issue if one hypothesis is outright forbidden. Note also that Ketanji Brown Jackson evaded the question when asked in a hearing.

They do it just fine. People who show up with crank hypotheses that are repeatedly rejected by evidence are not outright forbidden but generally not super popular.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#186

Post by saagarjha »

josephcsible wrote: post #106
tasty_freeze wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some examples? I'm out of the loop. Personally, I am trying to think of something I could say five years ago that I can't say now.

In 2020, it was acceptable to say that the FDA was rushing through the COVID vaccine's authorization process and not doing a good job of making sure it was safe.

Ok, but it’s been five years now. How long are you going to wait before you think it’s safe?

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#187

Post by laidoffamazon »

invalidname wrote: post #130
laidoffamazon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online.

> If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online. This statement is proof for the need of this rule. Everyone who disagrees with the "one truth" is obviously a racist who is aligned with the worst of…

[flagged]

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#188

Post by laidoffamazon »

pseudo0 wrote: post #145
laidoffamazon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online.

There are plenty of things you can say that are career limiting moves if attributed to an individual at a particular company. Eg. if an OpenAI employee says that ChatGPT is negatively impacting the education of children, it gets recorded, and then used in a hit piece against the company, that could go poorly. Or a Facebook employee speaking frankly about the negative impacts of social media, as another example. With…

Sounds like the definition of "good intentions" with no mechanisms to back them up.

All of these people seem a little bit too high on their own supply

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#189

Post by laidoffamazon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95
laidoffamazon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was at a party recently where someone argued hard-shell tacos are racist. As a taco enjoyer I don't think this is a serious argument and it's weird that you're taking it seriously > on Israel and Palestine five years ago than one might be comfortable expressing As someone that has been yelled at by all sides of this debate I really don't think that's true, I was getting yelled at 5 years ago too

> I don't think this is a serious argument and it's weird that you're taking it seriously They were yelling and called the host a xenophobe. They will not be invited back. It’s not a serious argument. But they took it seriously. > someone that has been yelled at by all sides of this debate I really don't think that's true, I was getting yelled at 5 years ago too You can always get yelled at. The point is almost any e…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN