551–560 of 570 posts
[flagged]
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43998721 and marked it off topic. Please observe the guidelines, especially these ones: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Ple…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the “I can’t be wrong because they’re clearly evil and the cause of all the world’s ills” argument. Sounds so familiar… Consider that everyone sees themselves as the hero… but that doesn’t mean you actually are, maybe, just maybe you are just as culpable as the person you’re accusing.
Note that you could use your objection to defend nazism too. You can't "moral relativism" everything. Republicans are currently the ones undermining the foundations or our republic, stripping rights from minorites (Texas just passed a bill that made it illegal to be trans), deporting people with no due process, arresting dissenting politicians and academics. They're the ones plunging this country into economical ruin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did, and it’s really not very convincing at all. It uses an example where a terror group in Japan was able to injure thousands of people with a chemical attack, and act as if this is… not a particularly effective outcome? Additionally, that “if you can find them” is doing some pretty heavy lifting. The range of explosives and kinetics is hilariously low, and the actual percentage of your military with the level of…
>I did, and it’s really not very convincing at all. It uses an example where a terror group in Japan was able to injure thousands of people with a chemical attack, and act as if this is… not a particularly effective outcome? Yes, it isn't effective outcome in terms of meeting their objective > It also doesn’t get into detail with concepts like dropping a bomb right in the middle of a firefight knowing it literally ca…
No, it’s science. There are about a million ways to protect your own troops if that’s actually what you want to do.
It feels like you’re arguing against the idea of chemical weapons from the 1940s, rather than nearly a century later.
You don’t need protective gear. You can create sprays, lotions, inhalants, and other countermeasures that don’t stop working the second a piece of cloth rips. Shit, You could make a biological agent that avoids a DNA marker created with an mRNA vaccine. Likely not nearly as fast, but perfectly lethal.
Modern chemical weapons and biological weapons are absolutely incomparable to their Vietnam counterparts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can not simply raise valid concerns about gene editing technologies in the hands of the entities that don't hesitate sending people en masse to kill and die and otherwise manifest their fascist cravings in the open, here on HN and walk away undownvoted
Science fiction pattern matching is a problem nobody talks about. People see something that vaguely resembles a movie that they saw and act like that movie is reality now.
Gattaca here we come!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43998721 and marked it off topic. Please observe the guidelines, especially these ones: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Ple…
can you tell me which rule the comment broke?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you tell me which rule the comment broke?
I suggested a few that covered your multiple comments in the subthread, and also people who are sincere about using HN in accordance with the guidelines and the site's intended purpose have a way of demonstrating it through their actions. If you want to contribute here, please make an effort to be a positive contributor.
I genuinely can't link any of these to any of my comments, that's why I'm asking. I reread those a couple of times. I really think I've been polite, and I really tried to be, even when called "beteft of humanity", "earnest" and accused of trolling. I did not insult anybody, didn't want to and I certainly didn't want to bring anyone down. I just asked a question that seemed (and still seems) logical to me, only to get shutdown by mass flagging, now by removal of the comment with no real explanation what rules I broke and why I was negative
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose in the beginning, it was about finding ways to measure how effective different altruistic approaches actually are and focusing your efforts on the most effective ones. Effective then essentially means how much impact you are achieving per dollar spent. One of the more convincing ways of doing this is looking at different charitable foundations and determining how much of each dollar you donate to them actua…
> One of the more convincing ways of doing this is looking at different charitable foundations and determining how much of each dollar you donate to them actually ends up being used to fix some problem and how much ends up being absorbed by the charitable foundation itself (salaries etc.) with nothing to show for it. Color me unconvinced. This will work for some situations. At this point, it's well known enough that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggested a few that covered your multiple comments in the subthread, and also people who are sincere about using HN in accordance with the guidelines and the site's intended purpose have a way of demonstrating it through their actions. If you want to contribute here, please make an effort to be a positive contributor.
> I suggested a few that covered your multiple comments in the subthread I genuinely can't link any of these to any of my comments, that's why I'm asking. I reread those a couple of times. I really think I've been polite, and I really tried to be, even when called "beteft of humanity", "earnest" and accused of trolling. I did not insult anybody, didn't want to and I certainly didn't want to bring anyone down. I just…
Please just understand that it can be upsetting to many people in the HN audience, as evidenced by the votes and comments, when the topic of death is addressed in this way: i.e., in a way that seems hyper-rationalist and diminishing of the way premature death – especially of infants and children – is particularly devastating to parents and loved ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
soluble has two meanings. - able to dissolve in solvent - able to be solved.
Is the second meaning archaic?
Here is a use in the title of a quite famous popular science book from the 1960's.
https://www.routledge.com/The-Art-of-the-Soluble/Medawar/p/b...