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

Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 246 posts

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#201

Post by pgcj_poster »

mwattsun wrote: post #79

The misuse of slang is probably the most common indicator that a person is not really a member of the group. Or not even slang, but just using the wrong word. For example of both, I know a businessman who retired recently and decided in retirement to present himself as a laid back ex-hippie (I live in Santa Cruz - a good choice of persona for this area) He grew his hair long and started wearing tie-die. Except, he re…

Note that the word "hippie" actually comes from an older usage of the word "hipster" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/hippie#etymonline_v_12029).

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#202

Post by zajio1am »

ptx wrote: post #191
sneak wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not your fault that the listener assumed you were divorced; you implied it (accidentally) but did not state it. You were not untruthful-what you said was literally and exactly correct. The assumptions made by a listener as a result of intentionally limited data are not your responsibility in any way, indeed even if you were able to predict them with any reasonable level of accuracy, which you are not. I have an…

This is called a lie by omission . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Types

Lie by omission is more problematic concept than explicit lie. IMHO one has almost always moral duty to not explicitly lie, but just rarely duty to not 'lie' by omission, depends mainly on whether the person has duty to communicate that information or whether one actively tries to deceive.

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#203

Post by TimTheTinker »

fortran77 wrote: post #199
TimTheTinker wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s common usage within the Christian community to refer to it as such. Christianity’s roots are in Judaism - and that fact doesn’t constitute poor taste. So neither does using the Christian term for the Tanakh within a Christian context. Now, knowingly calling it that to a Jew might possibly be interpreted as a form of disrespect, but in my experience most Jews don’t mind at all. It’s a shared scripture, so there’s…

Saying that the bible of a certain religion is obsolete and has been superseded (which is what "old" means in this sense) can't be interpreted kindly to say the least. You have every right to feel that it is obsolete, of course, but you should at least realize that this is not going to be considered well by the people whose holy books you appropriated, modified, and replaced.

> which is what "old" means in this sense

You’re very mistaken. “Old” in the term “Old Testament” does not mean obsolete and superceded, at least not in the way you mean. To think so would be considered heresy from most mainstream Christian schools of thought.

“Old” and “new” are, with regard to the sections of the Christian bible, temporal designations delineating the law and the prophets that were written before Messiah and the writings that came afterward. But all of it is considered to be the holy word of God.

As any Jew knows, the coming of Messiah heralds major changes in religious life and practice. As Moshe said, “you shall listen to him”. If some believe that has happened, that’s no slight on the former scriptures. In fact, if such a Messiah were to declare them no longer the word of God, any Jew would know and be right to say that such a person is a false messiah.

So there are aspects of the Tanakh that the coming of Messiah causes to be obsolete — like certain temple practices, or the first covenant at Sinai. Jeremiah 31 speaks of a “new covenant” God will make with the house of Israel and Judah. That doesn’t mean the first covenant is no longer God’s word.

It’s like when David gave directions for the construction of the temple and Solomon built it, that didn’t mean Moshe’s directions regarding the tabernacle were no longer God’s holy word — even though there never again was a tabernacle.

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#205

Post by pavel_lishin »

sneak wrote: post #197
ptx wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called a lie by omission . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Types

> Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. By this logic, one can lie by remaining entirely silent. I don't buy it.

> One can lie by remaining entirely silent.

Yup. An example would be listening to someone reach the wrong conclusion, and by staying silent and not correcting them, implying that they were correct.

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#206

Post by o-__-o »

michannne wrote: post #97
nkrisc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This method works wonders for corporate tech support. They're pretty used to the "my monitor won't turn on (it's not plugged in)" type users so when you try to tell them you know what's wrong, they assume you're there former type and you have no idea what you're talking about. Instead I very clearly tell them the specific symptoms and relevant information that they would look up anyway. Recently I had a corporate ins…

I do support along with my usual dev work and interface with users daily. I can't count the amount of times I've heard "I'm pretty sure it's because of..." followed by something completely unrelated, along with a stubborn resolve to not try the professional's recommended solution

Or they give you a log snippet and fail to say _what_ log it came from. Context, people!

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#207

Post by TheCoelacanth »

anonu wrote: post #88
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the registered owner of the ETF, but the beneficial owner of the underlying shares.

Not correct. If you own an ETF you do not have voting rights of the underlying stocks. So you are not a beneficial owner of the underlying. You also do not have "direct" access to the dividends. The fund manager will pool the dividends and pay them out on a regular schedule, after taking their cut of fees.

The IRS defines "beneficial owner" as "the person who is required under U.S. tax principles to include the payment in gross income on a tax return"[1]. Using that definition, you certainly would be a beneficial owner regardless of whether you can directly exercise voting rights or directly receive dividends. The indirectness is the whole point of the distinction between beneficial and registered owners.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/instructions/iw8ben#idm140376280574400

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#208

Post by loco5niner »

sneak wrote: post #144
typhonic wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 30 years ago I was being asked by some guy I barely knew to do something over the weekend. I didn't know how to tell him that I would rather just be at home with my family. Eventually and without thinking it through, I just said "It's my weekend with the kids." He instantly became apologetic and said he understood completely. And I instantly felt like a heel for pretending to be someone I'm not. I had accidenta…

It’s not your fault that the listener assumed you were divorced; you implied it (accidentally) but did not state it. You were not untruthful-what you said was literally and exactly correct. The assumptions made by a listener as a result of intentionally limited data are not your responsibility in any way, indeed even if you were able to predict them with any reasonable level of accuracy, which you are not. I have an…

No. "It's my weekend with my kids" is well understood to mean divorce. It was clearly a lie. Good on OP to recognize it.

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#209

Post by sneak »

loco5niner wrote: post #208
sneak wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not your fault that the listener assumed you were divorced; you implied it (accidentally) but did not state it. You were not untruthful-what you said was literally and exactly correct. The assumptions made by a listener as a result of intentionally limited data are not your responsibility in any way, indeed even if you were able to predict them with any reasonable level of accuracy, which you are not. I have an…

No. "It's my weekend with my kids" is well understood to mean divorce. It was clearly a lie. Good on OP to recognize it.

No, it can imply divorce, but it does not specify; it is ambiguous. You are assigning explicit communication where there is none, objectively.

The listener's assumptions (or lack thereof), which happen after the speaker speaks, cannot retroactively cause the statement to be or not be a lie.

Re: Shibboleths that get you past the initial script stage

#210

Post by dang »

fortran77 wrote: post #111

Today, Jews who attend synagogue know the bible, because it's read, chapter by chapter, out loud, every Shabbat, Monday, and Thursday, and continuously studied in yearly and multi-year cycles. Yesterday, Jews everywhere heard the story of Esau and Jacob, read in Hebrew. I don't think any Christian denomination does this, so unless you attend a specfic religious school you'll never learn the Christian bible (which inc…

You started a religious flamewar in this thread and then perpetuated it. That's the last thing we want here and we ban accounts that do it. I'm glad that you've mostly stopped doing the bannable things that we've asked you not to do over the years—but this one is still a problem. Can you please keep it off HN?

May I add that I say this with deep respect for Judaism.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21675729 and marked it off-topic.

Post reply on HN