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

LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 663 posts

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#511

Post by neonological »

ggm wrote: post #432
neonological wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On top of that, (b) you added snark ("of course") and insinuation ("on the surface") in a way that strikes me as particularly uncharitable No this is a misinterpretation or perhaps I thought the meaning was implied. The spirit of what I meant is that of course you would say something like: "HN only downweights things in the interest of the community but never in the interest of YC." >You've done it again with "Seems…

Can you address the semantic intent of your use of the word only and what Dan said please: the substantive point to me is you implied only == specific == evidence of bias and as Dan said it is well established they down weight for more than one reason which implies != only which I think, personally you haven't adequately addressed. You're basically wrong.

The point is a person in his position can only say one thing. "I downweight posts in the interest of the community not in the interest of YC." Whether this statement is true or not is irrelevant as it is the only thing he will say.

It is unreasonable to think he will say the opposite of the above. He will not say "HN regularly censors posts that are against the interests of YC." This will never be said because both versions of HN the one benevolent to the community and the one serving the interests of YC will NOT say this. Thus he can only say basically one thing. That is the purpose of what I mean when I use the word "only."

I'm not saying there is evidence for censorship I am not saying that this is what is happening. I am saying there is motive and a conflict of interest and motive and conflict of interest is enough for this to be suspicious.

>You're basically wrong.

How can I be wrong when all I am saying is that there is a conflict of interest. Can you legitimately say there isn't?

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#512

Post by mbgerring »

dasickis wrote: post #365
dasickis wrote: post #120

I'm the person this original tweet was about. None of you know any of the internal details but what I can state is that Paul has no idea what he's talking about and later admits to the fact I wasn't lying. Here's the order of events: 1. I went to a neighborhood clinic in Oakland, CA that's literally next door to my house, I can see the church from my window. Paul lives in NYC which is on the opposite end of the count…

Since most of these self-righteous comments below still have no idea what they're talking about. The site was for overflow of vaccines that were going unused & being thrown out. The Oakland Coliseum is one of these mega-sites. So many of you don't understand the on-the-ground realities of the communities you're speaking of where I live. I see my neighbors and when FEMA is running these sites they know their goals. It…

From what other people who saw your original post have said, it sounds like you got significant pushback at the time, and that you knew that you were skirting the eligibility criteria as you understood it.

As I’m sure you are aware, the brunt of COVID infections and deaths in the Bay Area were borne mostly by our Black and Latinx neighbors, especially those who continued to work during the pandemic, serving those of us who were able to work from home in our underwear all year. And I’m also sure you’re aware that the relaxed eligibility criteria that allowed you to get vaccinated early was meant to reach them, not you.

You can dismiss your critics as “moral crusaders.” You cannot dismiss the fact that the people public health officials were trying to reach with the vaccine you took died at a much higher rate from COVID than, for example, the community of Y Combinator alumni.

How you feel about any of that is up to you, but I hope you’re at least willing to be honest about what happened.

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#513

Post by Firehawke »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #470
dang wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would depend on the specific circumstances, but I can imagine doing that, or perhaps there would be something else we could do that was better; it's hard to say in general, because cases like that are always very specific. We'd want to explain as much to the community as we could without harmful side-effects, but if someone's safety or privacy is at risk, I'm comfortable telling the community so, and I'm confident…

This is a really disappointing answer. I know, I know discussing moderation here is frowned upon... but come on. You’re basically saying there’s a secondary set of rules that are decided and disclosed arbitrarily. It’s your choice how to moderate, I don’t have any expectation or illusion of a right to use this platform. But can you understand how this creates ambiguity for people who don’t know what the rules ultimat…

Any kind of working moderation system is going to have a certain level of "we have to play it by ear" or else it gets overrun by rules lawyers playing to the word and not the spirit of imposed rules.

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#514

Post by Barrin92 »

meepmorp wrote: post #416
Barrin92 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the people in question lack apparently any sort of civic virtue or else they wouldn't be engaging in this behaviour in the first place, where else do you propose one exposes dirty laundry other than in the public? This is exactly why people in positions of power are afraid of transparency and why there is such a anti-media bias in the tech industry.

You're assuming the truth of one side in the matter, with very limited information.

not that big of an assumption given that, as we have seen, the person in question had no reason to make that up and a lot to lose.

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#515

Post by beiller »

xtracto wrote: post #488
dasickis wrote: post #120

I'm the person this original tweet was about. None of you know any of the internal details but what I can state is that Paul has no idea what he's talking about and later admits to the fact I wasn't lying. Here's the order of events: 1. I went to a neighborhood clinic in Oakland, CA that's literally next door to my house, I can see the church from my window. Paul lives in NYC which is on the opposite end of the count…

It baffles me how people get outraged when other people get vaccinated out of "order" . Here in Mexico there's a lot of ruckus because of people going to Texas to get vaccine. Or when doctors vaccinated themselves and their families. My thought is... when it comes to vaccines. It doesn't matter who goes first and who goes later. The fact that someone (anyone) is vaccinated helps us all. I still dont have the vaccine…

I think, assuming the vaccine is effective, vaccination only one group like what is happening in a small set of countries, will have a negative effect on the goal of eliminating a virus (is this the goal?). Supposedly allowing the virus to thrive and mutate in a subset of humans would make vaccines overall less effective at completely extinguishing a disease. But case by case has a negligit effect on national disparity, but socially it seems unacceptable.

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#516

Post by m-ee »

HWR_14 wrote: post #476
m-ee wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn’t skirt some eligibility rules because no one asked questions. The west Oakland site first tried reaching out to local low income community members and after seeing low uptake opened it up to everyone one, the pastor of the church himself was encouraging anyone over 18 to come by.

mbgerring's post further up the chain definitely claims that they exceeded the eligibility rules. Inviting people from outside the prioritized neighborhood to come take shots and there being a 4 hour line implies skirting eligibility rules.

I’m saying that claim is not accurate, there were no eligibility rules at this site later on. They tried restricting to get shots to people in west Oakland reached through the networks of the church and other community organizers, then deliberately opened it up to everyone because they had excess supply. I didn’t get my shot there but live a few blocks away.

You could argue that they shouldn’t have opened it up, or that every healthy person under 65 should have waited until supply was plentiful before trying to get one to not edge out any seniors or other at risk people, but there was no rule breaking or duplicity here.

I’ll also add that after this there were further targeted efforts towards getting shots to these zip codes. Someone in 94607 was eligible at most East bay sites weeks before CA fully opened up eligibility. I think this is what mberring is referring to, but it was a separate program from the vaccination site at the church.

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#517

Post by Closi »

dfabulich wrote: post #508
HWR_14 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have gone to a grocery store or a pharmacy for the vaccine. Every grocery store with an in house pharmacy and ever major chain of pharmacies offered it. You just didn't want to wait your turn. But, besides that, Mt. Zion was set aside for a high-risk community. You didn't have the same risk factors but helped yourself to one of their doses. I don't see how that's not applicable. I mean, the food was availab…

Mt. Zion wasn't "set aside for a high-risk community." It should have been, and indeed it was set aside earlier that week, but by Thursday morning they opened the gates and let everyone in. https://archive.is/Z55Oe As a result, it was my turn, after I waited in line for four hours at a "first come, first serve" vaccination site. Elsewhere you allege that @dasickis and I were "skirting eligibility rules." You know tha…

> Due to the lack of rules, I didn't have the option to give the vaccine I took to an underprivileged person of color in the West Oakland community.

You did have an option to give it to someone less privileged - The option is not taking it yourself so that someone who is at higher risk likely gets it, which is what the program was trying to achieve. In a world of limited supply/capacity one person getting a vaccine simply means another doesn’t.

I’m not from the states, but your post does seem to be the stereotype of American culture of “seek individual benefit at the expense of the wider community”, I.e. “I didn’t technically break any rules, so why am I being berated for jumping in front of other people who are more in need?”.

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#518

Post by ggm »

neonological wrote: post #511
ggm wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you address the semantic intent of your use of the word only and what Dan said please: the substantive point to me is you implied only == specific == evidence of bias and as Dan said it is well established they down weight for more than one reason which implies != only which I think, personally you haven't adequately addressed. You're basically wrong.

The point is a person in his position can only say one thing. "I downweight posts in the interest of the community not in the interest of YC." Whether this statement is true or not is irrelevant as it is the only thing he will say. It is unreasonable to think he will say the opposite of the above. He will not say "HN regularly censors posts that are against the interests of YC." This will never be said because both v…

You're not addressing the point. You said he only downweights for one reason. Plainly, he has declared consistency in downweighting for many reasons. No amount of self justification changes the fact you said he ONLY downweights for one reason, and that's factually incorrect.

What he did in this specific case? Different matter. What he does as a matter of both stated policy and declared intent and I would suggest, evidence is different. He downweights for a range of reasons.

Why can't you just accept that and say so? What's blocking you from acknowledging your own words are just incorrect?

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#519

Post by benreesman »

Personalities and personas and misdeeds of participants (real or imagined) and feuds and every other human-interest story have always been a part of the technology world.

But those things do seem to be growing rapidly as a fraction of overall mind share.

Re: LOL just got kicked out of @ycombinator

#520

Post by HWR_14 »

dfabulich wrote: post #508
HWR_14 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have gone to a grocery store or a pharmacy for the vaccine. Every grocery store with an in house pharmacy and ever major chain of pharmacies offered it. You just didn't want to wait your turn. But, besides that, Mt. Zion was set aside for a high-risk community. You didn't have the same risk factors but helped yourself to one of their doses. I don't see how that's not applicable. I mean, the food was availab…

Mt. Zion wasn't "set aside for a high-risk community." It should have been, and indeed it was set aside earlier that week, but by Thursday morning they opened the gates and let everyone in. https://archive.is/Z55Oe As a result, it was my turn, after I waited in line for four hours at a "first come, first serve" vaccination site. Elsewhere you allege that @dasickis and I were "skirting eligibility rules." You know tha…

Mt. Zion was set aside for a high risk community. Your own article makes it quite clear.

It was specifically opened to counter the difficulty of members of that community to get vaccinated at the Coliseum. The "clinic was intended to serve: Black, Latino and Pacific Islander people." Organizers call people from outside the community "interlopers" (I recognize you may live in the community, but those you invited did not.) They say “You hope that word doesn’t spread".

The fact that they did not require online appointments or ID was because the population they were trying to serve often lacks ID or the means to make appointments. Again, this is directly comparable to a food bank. The food is first-come first-serve and there is rarely paperwork/proof of insolvency. Heck, they probably don't even have a sign that say "Free Food for poor people only". Why are you not going to a foodbank?

You then claim if you hadn't taken a vaccine someone else just as unentitled would have. That's a claim you can make about almost any crime or heinous act. If Bernie Madoff hadn't ripped those people off some other smart con would have. If you don't steal that drunk's wallet, someone else is going to.

But, beyond that, you advertised the location. The main reason there was... what? To score social credit by being "the guy who found me my vaccine" in stories for the next five years? To produce a sense of obligation among people you may need favors from? Because you valued you were communicating with over the poor people in Oakland?

Fundamentally, you did something wrong.

Post reply on HN