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

STFU

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 632 posts

Re: STFU

#591

Post by dystopiandevel »

runjake wrote: post #297
tra3 wrote: post #28

In the style of cheap tiktoks: "There are two types of people...". My wife loves listening to her phone on max volume, but it sounds so bad compared to half decent speakers. Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!! Also why are people using speaker phones in public places at max volume. The speaker i…

> what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!! Finally, it's my time to shine. OK, so I do this. Granted, I hike spots where I rarely run into other people. I listen to music out in nature because: - I enjoy it and it creates a mood. - I don't wear headphones because I want to be comfortable but I also want t…

I can appreciate the reasons you have for wanting it. The only problem is when it affects my hiking experience. It annoys the crap out of me to hear it coming loudly from down the path when I just want to listen to nature.

Like the other commenter posted, you can use open earbuds, which I use as well for the same reasons.

As far as wild cats go, they are already pretty good at knowing you are there already without a speaker. Where I live there are many mountain lions and bobcats but I have never seen one close up, same in the California Sierra. In terms of bears, if they aren't black bears then yeah although it depends on where you are hiking. If it's in the backcountry, please pause it when I come by.

Re: STFU

#592

Post by getdoneist »

niemandhier wrote: post #580
getdoneist wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pure game theory. An aggressive person expects no bad outcomes from his passive victim. If they get a signal that their own outcome may be not that good, even marginally, this very often changes their behaviour. That's why the advice to act submissively presented as "avoiding confrontation" is often the wrong advice. You are not seeking confrontation, but you should signal that you are ready for confrontation.…

This is dangerous advice. You need to read the situation very carefully: Antisocial behavior is often an attempt to gain status in the subjects in-group. Breaking rules in a way conveys power. Violence against members of the out-group is an even more effective way to display dominance and hence gain status. Unless you play a repeated game with the other person there is little to gain for you by initiating conflict. E…

The advice is not about initiating a conflict. It is about not to appear an easy victim in order not to provoke aggression.

But life is always about fight-or-flight, so flight should remain an option, very often the best one.

By not signalling readiness to fight back, you increase probability of aggression by removing all costs to the potential perpetrator from their calculation.

Re: STFU

#593

Post by cindyllm »

getdoneist wrote: post #592
niemandhier wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is dangerous advice. You need to read the situation very carefully: Antisocial behavior is often an attempt to gain status in the subjects in-group. Breaking rules in a way conveys power. Violence against members of the out-group is an even more effective way to display dominance and hence gain status. Unless you play a repeated game with the other person there is little to gain for you by initiating conflict. E…

The advice is not about initiating a conflict. It is about not to appear an easy victim in order not to provoke aggression. But life is always about fight-or-flight, so flight should remain an option, very often the best one. By not signalling readiness to fight back, you increase probability of aggression by removing all costs to the potential perpetrator from their calculation.

[dead]

Re: STFU

#594

Post by kittikitti »

phainopepla2 wrote: post #24
kittikitti wrote: post #14

I think it's worse that you have to behave maliciously. They have a right to make sound in public places. I'm not one of those people who plays stuff on full volume in public places but sometimes I am a bit noisy. I think back to when I'm having fun and it often involves a bunch of noise. Society is becoming way too intolerant and conformist.

Doesn't the right to make sound in public places extend to the hypothetical users of this app? I don't think a rights-based framing is the best way to look at this. It's about courtesy and respect for social norms. I don't see how society is becoming too intolerant, if anything I think we are more tolerant of anti-social behavior than ever before.

The hypothetical users of the app will use it to shut down noise in public places.

You are the one defending anti-social behavior here.

If you don't like noise, don't go outside where other humans are. If you use psychological manipulation because you think people are playing videos too loud, maybe take a deep look in the mirror before talking about courtesy and respect.

Re: STFU

#595

Post by kittikitti »

jlund-molfese wrote: post #39
kittikitti wrote: post #14

I think it's worse that you have to behave maliciously. They have a right to make sound in public places. I'm not one of those people who plays stuff on full volume in public places but sometimes I am a bit noisy. I think back to when I'm having fun and it often involves a bunch of noise. Society is becoming way too intolerant and conformist.

Why not use headphones, so you can enjoy noise without bothering people who don’t like noise? Some noise can be uncomfortable to people at an airport. Movies with gunfire or shouting for example.

It's absurd that people would all have to carry around and use headphones just because some people don't want noise in public. I would agree that loud gunfire isn't appropriate in an airport but that's not the case here and you're misconstruing the situation to make your case sound better.

Re: STFU

#596

Post by kittikitti »

marssaxman wrote: post #37
kittikitti wrote: post #14

I think it's worse that you have to behave maliciously. They have a right to make sound in public places. I'm not one of those people who plays stuff on full volume in public places but sometimes I am a bit noisy. I think back to when I'm having fun and it often involves a bunch of noise. Society is becoming way too intolerant and conformist.

If they have a right to play their sounds in a public place, then I also have the right to play the same sounds in the same public place at almost, but not exactly, the same time.

You should absolutely do that and play it as loud as you want. What if the other person doesn't want to be manipulated and just plays it louder?

Re: STFU

#597

Post by kittikitti »

Ritewut wrote: post #140
kittikitti wrote: post #14

I think it's worse that you have to behave maliciously. They have a right to make sound in public places. I'm not one of those people who plays stuff on full volume in public places but sometimes I am a bit noisy. I think back to when I'm having fun and it often involves a bunch of noise. Society is becoming way too intolerant and conformist.

No one is saying don't make noise. They are saying be considerate of those around you. It is not a radical idea.

So you would advocate for someone to do this in public against someone else playing a video on their phone? Do you think this is the most considerate option?

Re: STFU

#598

Post by joecool1029 »

kstrauser wrote: post #574
amelius wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but my original question was what happens if two people are caught with an SDR unit, and authorities can't prove who (of the two people) used their unit to do the jamming.

Not a lawyer. My guess: if they’re together, they’d both be charged, as if they robbed a store as a team. If they’re not, neither would be charged, as each would have a brilliant defense.

Nobody clicks the link and reads… they just use the slop generators, now I’m stuck having to do tard wrangling:

> Sections 510 - allows for seizure of unlawful equipment (47 U.S.C. § 510).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/510

> (a) Violation with willful and knowing intent Any electronic, electromagnetic, radio frequency, or similar device, or component thereof, used, sent, carried, manufactured, assembled, possessed, offered for sale, sold, or advertised with willful and knowing intent to violate section 301 or 302a of this title, or rules prescribed by the Commission under such sections, may be seized and forfeited to the United States.

Guess what? You don’t have to be a fucking lawyer to know how to read.

Re: STFU

#599

Post by kstrauser »

joecool1029 wrote: post #598
kstrauser wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer. My guess: if they’re together, they’d both be charged, as if they robbed a store as a team. If they’re not, neither would be charged, as each would have a brilliant defense.

Nobody clicks the link and reads… they just use the slop generators, now I’m stuck having to do tard wrangling: > Sections 510 - allows for seizure of unlawful equipment (47 U.S.C. § 510). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/510 > (a) Violation with willful and knowing intent Any electronic, electromagnetic, radio frequency, or similar device, or component thereof, used, sent, carried, manufactured, assembled,…

So much confident incorrectness. It says you can’t do those things with a device that’s marketed as being a jammer. Any radio can be used as a jammer, just not sold for that specific purpose.

So yes, you can own an SDR, slop and/or reading comprehension notwithstanding.

Re: STFU

#600

Post by paradox460 »

inlined wrote: post #405
indrora wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine works AV at shows that have rotating DJs and one of the things she has on her mixer board is "The Suck Button." It causes a mic at the other end of the room to get cut into the DJ's live feed monitor with a semitone shift down and some reverb. This causes all sorts of inner-ear chaos and usually clears a DJ off the stage when they're over time within a few minutes at most -- usually under 30 seconds.…

There was a coffee shop ages ago in SF that would every few hours play a cacophony (e.g. multiple songs at once). I assume it was to drive away people camping on their laptops to rotate tables. Understand but super annoying to people like me who had a timer to but food or drink no less than hourly to be a good citizen

Carissa's Wierd used to put cacophony at the end of some of their songs to clear the house out as well
Post reply on HN