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

38 People are looking at this post right now

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–196 of 196 posts

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#191

Post by ben509 »

matz1 wrote: post #176
cgriswald wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the ways you earn and fight for those rights is by not claiming they don’t exist. There are already enough people in the world who think you don’t deserve those rights. Best to keep the goal posts far away and convince as many others as you can that that’s where they belong.

Yes, any rights exist because someone earn it or fight for it. Its not just given from god or something.

And yet tribes and nations that recognize and protect inalienable rights are consistently able to defeat those that assume the strong should have power over the weak.

The reason being that individuals living in societies with inalienable rights feel they have more worth fighting for, and they are more industrious and able to build robust trust networks.

None of that is subjective, it's all how the universe works, so, yes, you could plausibly attribute it to God or any kind of creator.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#192

Post by matz1 »

ben509 wrote: post #191
matz1 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, any rights exist because someone earn it or fight for it. Its not just given from god or something.

And yet tribes and nations that recognize and protect inalienable rights are consistently able to defeat those that assume the strong should have power over the weak. The reason being that individuals living in societies with inalienable rights feel they have more worth fighting for, and they are more industrious and able to build robust trust networks. None of that is subjective, it's all how the universe works, so,…

The strong does always have power over the weak. The right that exist right now is because someone powerful enough to fight for it and maintain it, otherwise those right doesn't exist.

Rights are subjective, meaning it depends on the particular society, even it may have different meaning to everyone. Example: The rights for woman in Afghanistan and USA are different.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#193

Post by matz1 »

ben509 wrote: post #189
matz1 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing with morality, its subjective. There are no such thing as inalienable rights. Every right has to be earned and fight for.

But people will reliably fight for it, that's an objective fact.

Agree, some people will fight for it, some people will fight againts it.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#194

Post by jchw »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #160
jchw wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t need another word for lying. Dark patterns are trying to trick your users into doing something they didn’t want to. The term exists because other terms didn’t capture this undesirable behavior well enough, and it need not be expanded to literally anything negative. And not all sales/marketing tricks are inherently evil. I don’t think eBay telling you how many users watched an item in the past hour is immoral…

Disagree. "Dark patterns" exist because enough people talking about them are also working in or tangential to marketing, which makes them uncomfortable calling it what it is - lying, abuse, dishonesty, malicious activity, exploiting people. "Dark patters" is just an euphemism.

That doesn't sound at all like the history of the term dark pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#195

Post by mschuetz »

guessmyname wrote: post #25
mschuetz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with Math.random()? I use it all the time (graphics) and it works like a charm.

Read these articles to know what is wrong with Math.random() • https://medium.com/@betable/tifu-by-using-math-random-f1c308... • https://hackernoon.com/how-does-javascripts-math-random-gene... • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10751396 • https://v8.dev/blog/math-random > Many random number generators in use today are not very good. There is a tendency for people to avoid learning anything about such subroutines;…

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What kind of random number generation you need depends entirely on your use case, and for my use cases it's just fine since "better" random number generators won't give me better results. If you really have strict requirements on your random number, then yeah, you will have to find another solution.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#196

Post by zzo38computer »

prawn wrote: post #77
lainga wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way out of it I can think of would be: if the site could prove that some number of people, greater than 45, were hitting that specific query on that specific page, then vacuously, they could say that any number of people between 1 and 45 were also looking at the offer. But then, why wouldn't they just display "at least 45 people" or the exact number? I'm struggling to find some way of doing this which could…

My thought (giving them benefit of the doubt) was that perhaps they knew that somewhere in the vicinity of 28-45 had been looking recently, but not with per-minute confidence. So they fix that range and then randomly pick something from that range to display on each page load. But that is giving them a lot of benefit!

Maybe, then to be truthful you can display "Approx. 28-45 people are viewing this"
Post reply on HN