271–280 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make the opposite of your claim with an alt account. Then challenge it for evidence. Now your position wins by default.
If nobody's going to answer you, your position wins regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a HTTP status code for pages which were deleted: 410 Gone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#4xx_... This was famously used by Mark Pilgrim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pilgrim#%22Disappearance%...
Has anyone ever seen this in the wild? I didn’t even know it existed. Who knew there were so many different status codes.
Edit--added note
[1] For all the good it does. I just checked my logs and I still see requests for pages I marked as "gone" 15 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Demanding citations you don't plan to read, to either waste a person's time or to make them look unreliable, is a tactic I've seen used so often I normally don't care to provide links. Instead, I'll just point out some 'so you agree with my argument but doubt data backs it up?' at which point, if they respond, it'll b…
As someone who gets censored for wrongthink routinely, I’ve taken up having GitHub repos of links so it’s easy to support my point. Case in point: I’m “banned” on HN because @dang thinks my genuine view, calmly stated is inherently a flame war and I shouldn’t be allowed to join the conversation.
So that is to say, where does HN have a discrepancy between what it "says on the box", and what's "in the box"?
Where or how can a HN visitor be led into believing that HN is a site where one can post anything whatsoever without facing a moderating mechanism, as long as the material has a calm tone without any abusive language or personal attacks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have an inherent information theoretic advantage over non-outrageous claims when consumed by someone who is unable to discern their veracity.
Could you expand on that? Are you saying the more outrageous a claim it's the more likely people are to believe it? That itself sounds like an outrageous claim to me, so I would like to see evidence for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume the parent poster takes issue with the definition of “subsidy” in the paper, which is probably better called “unpriced externalities” in the context. (It’s still IMO a subsidy, but it’s not what we intuitively think of as such, and thus the data point is rather misleading when quoted in the press.)
Fair enough point. I would argue that you can't really take issue with calling it a subsidy unless you're willing to take issue with the unpriced externalities. If a government refuses to price them in it's effectively the same as directly subsidizing the present generations at expense of future ones.
> I had a conversation with an Amish gentleman yesterday while I was loading at a mill, and at the end of the conversation he asked me one question that should really get one thinking. He asked "Do you know why this virus hasn't affected us yet?" no "well because we don't have television"
The good friend who posted this was like, "this really got me thinking!"
(I presumed the subtext was that this virus is just blown out of proportion.)
My response was -- WHY? Why do we even assume this quote is TRUE? And why would you let fake things like this give you something to think about?
These are no better than the junk faxes people used to pass around claiming Proctor & Gamble worshiped the devil. I was kind of glad I stopped getting them in email from relatives because they moved to facebook instead, but ... so much of our society's ... gestalt? mindset? ... is formed by these junk memes being passed around as truth. (And this isn't unique to one political persuasion.)
The best evidence that Facebook and Twitter are drugs I think is that for some reason brains turn off when consuming media on them.
Where has our critical thinking gone? We’re hopeless as a society without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
L is locator, I is identifier. URLs are a subset of URIs. Both start with a schema (something:...), but URIs lack the information about the location and way to get at a resource. The canonical example for identifier-but-not-location is an ISBN or DOI. That interpretation however requires a very peculiar interpretation of "location", because imho "where can I read about that" can precisely be answered by "ISBN ...". T…
Being too lazy to go ready RFCs on a Monday morning, is what a valid schema consists of spelled out? Is `isbn://0441569595` a valid URI? If so, is there a standardized list of schemas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who gets censored for wrongthink routinely, I’ve taken up having GitHub repos of links so it’s easy to support my point. Case in point: I’m “banned” on HN because @dang thinks my genuine view, calmly stated is inherently a flame war and I shouldn’t be allowed to join the conversation.
Can you point to any HN documentation which is misleading in this regard? So that is to say, where does HN have a discrepancy between what it "says on the box", and what's "in the box"? Where or how can a HN visitor be led into believing that HN is a site where one can post anything whatsoever without facing a moderating mechanism, as long as the material has a calm tone without any abusive language or personal attac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have an inherent information theoretic advantage over non-outrageous claims when consumed by someone who is unable to discern their veracity.
Could you expand on that? Are you saying the more outrageous a claim it's the more likely people are to believe it? That itself sounds like an outrageous claim to me, so I would like to see evidence for it.
> the "informational value" of a communicated message depends on the degree to which the content of the message is surprising [0]
Of course, this assumes the message is factual. If it's not factual then the message carries no information (aside from the information it implies about the sender). But, that assumes the receiver is able to discern whether or not the message is factual. If the receiver can't discern that, then it simply appears to be a highly informative message.
False outrageous claims have the further advantage that they are unconstrained by reality. True surprising claims are by nature less likely to occur. That's why they're surprising. But there is no probabilistic throttle on false outrageous claims - one can generate them at whatever frequency they desire.
Thus, false outrageous claims have an information theoretic advantage over true claims because they outnumber true surprising claims, and they appear to be more informative than true unsurprising claims. My argument isn't that the more outrageous a claim is, the more likely people are to believe it, per se. My argument is that outrageous claims get more attention from people because they are less likely, and those who are unable to discern that they are false will simply see them as highly informative.
You could probably argue further that the more frequently an outrageous claim is repeated, the less improbable it will sound. In other words, start with an outrageous claim to get peoples attention, and then repeat it a lot to normalize it and reduce doubt about it's validity.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)