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

What we learned doing Fast Grants

future.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#91

Post by nickthemagicman »

buu700 wrote: post #50
nickthemagicman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire post is pure speculation and fear mongering All drugs are decriminalized in Portugal, Uruguay, etc. with less addiction and better addiction outcomes than the U.S. They treat addiction like a disease like diabetes instead of a crime. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/...

I didn't get the sense that GP was necessarily agreeing with those positions, more illustrating the high-level political hurdles (right or wrong) that legalization fundamentally faces. It's similar in my mind to self-driving cars. The first post-large-scale-rollout deaths will likely cause a political backlash, even if statisticians and scientists are able to show that the proposed regulatory response would cause mor…

"Inevitably, lots of people would become addicted and there would be many deaths."

Outright wrong, baseless, and fear-mongering.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#92

Post by cbsmith »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #88
cbsmith wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think I screwed up big time. I'm really at a loss for how it came across as any kind of suggestion about something that might happen in the future (a key perquisite for anything to be a threat). Even that aside, for it to be a threat, that would somehow mean the original statement it was referring to was threatening people with critical thinking bells... that seems nonsensical to me. So again: I definitely sc…

Your quote: """There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)""" This is essentially your argument: """ There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your brains blown out with a critical thinking shotgun and some eight gauge ideas and buried in an unmarked grave of introspection! Can't IMAGINE how you could interpret that in a negative way! """ You're either cal…

I was definitely implying there your thinking on this matter was impaired (which isn't the same as calling you stupid, but it is close), and I thought even if you had blanked out the "having your bell rung" that part would have been pretty obvious from the context. Clearly I was very wrong.

Again, I'm sorry. I clearly didn't phrase things well, and I shouldn't have made the statement regardless. I would remove that sentence from the comment if I could.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#93

Post by dang »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #90
dang wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was certainly a lame thing to put in an HN comment but (a) you're misquoting it and (b) I don't think most people would read it as "an actual violent threat".

Their quote: """There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)"""" Theyre either baselessly calling me stupid or threatening me...both are bannable offenses...and I'm getting the warning... If this was a truly fair site that person would be banned.

I'm sorry, but I have to call em as I see em and it seems to me that you're the person who's out of line here. cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on.

I understand how random things on the internet can be triggering but it's each of our responsibility to process those reactions in ourselves and not just vent them into the commons. Please stop posting like this.

You're the commenter that I warned because, as I explained in the warning (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27524628), you have a history of breaking the site guidelines. I mean, I had to tell you this 8 months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24594431) and you've just kept doing it and we've had to warn you several times since then. This is not cool.

I do not think you're a bad HN user (otherwise we'd have banned you a long time ago). The problem is that you have a history of overreacting and then taking it out on other users. That's not cool and needs to stop.

You've responded to this latest request to stop posting flamewar comments by posting a whole flurry more of them. I'm not going to ban you for that because, like I said, I know how things can be activating, and everyone goes on tilt sometimes. But please fix this going forward. I don't want to ban you but we can't have accounts making a habit of breaking the rules here.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#94

Post by cbsmith »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #89
cbsmith wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking. I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head…

So what you're saying.... is that instead of violently threatening me.... you were baselessly calling me stupid?? Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.

> you were baselessly calling me stupid??

No, I was saying your thinking on the matter was flawed; "baselessly" is in the eyes of the beholder, but even if I am wrong I think I had a pretty good basis for saying so. As I said in my original comment, I feel you were presenting a false narrative.

> Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information?

Maybe you posted references elsewhere, but the comment I was responding to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146) did not contain any references.

As I felt I was responding to a Gish Gallop, I didn't provide any references either, though I made references to facts that are easily verifiable from a number of sources. Is there something specific I said that you cannot verify?

Now you are claiming the information I provided in my response was false, but you haven't made any specific claims about a statement I made that was false. The closest you came to such a statement would be be your reiteration about the disease's survival rate (and if you're looking for a citation on how disease survival rate is computed: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term...).

In general, "unsourced false fear mongering information" feels like a case of projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying we should be fearful of the vaccines by making unsourced statements that at the most charitable could be described as misleading?

> You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.

Again, this feels like projection, but I'm not sure what "Facebook science" is. Can you define it and provide an example of something I've posted that is "Facebook science"?

Again, I made a comment I shouldn't have, and I understand you read it as a personal attack. It was a derogatory statement (which again, I should not have done), but it was derogatory towards the comments you made, and not you personally. If anything, I was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#95

Post by cbsmith »

dang wrote: post #93
nickthemagicman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their quote: """There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)"""" Theyre either baselessly calling me stupid or threatening me...both are bannable offenses...and I'm getting the warning... If this was a truly fair site that person would be banned.

I'm sorry, but I have to call em as I see em and it seems to me that you're the person who's out of line here. cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on. I understand how random things on the internet can be triggering but it's each of our responsibility to process those rea…

> cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on.

Thanks for saying that dang. I really screwed up and I'm trying my best to make up for it, but I was starting to question whether I was even doing that right.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#96

Post by nickthemagicman »

dang wrote: post #93
nickthemagicman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their quote: """There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)"""" Theyre either baselessly calling me stupid or threatening me...both are bannable offenses...and I'm getting the warning... If this was a truly fair site that person would be banned.

I'm sorry, but I have to call em as I see em and it seems to me that you're the person who's out of line here. cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on. I understand how random things on the internet can be triggering but it's each of our responsibility to process those rea…

He apologized...by saying that his comment meant that I was STUPID..and wasn't a violent threat!

I don't know what kind of clout cbsmith has to straight up call someone stupid and not get a warning or a ban.

It doesn't matter. I don't believe I did anything wrong here.

I'm going to continue to do what I think is right and if you have to ban me go for it.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#97

Post by nickthemagicman »

cbsmith wrote: post #95
dang wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I have to call em as I see em and it seems to me that you're the person who's out of line here. cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on. I understand how random things on the internet can be triggering but it's each of our responsibility to process those rea…

> cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on. Thanks for saying that dang. I really screwed up and I'm trying my best to make up for it, but I was starting to question whether I was even doing that right.

Your apology was saying you meant that I was stupid and it wasn't a violent threat.

Some apology!

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#98

Post by DrJones1098 »

cbsmith wrote: post #94
nickthemagicman wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying.... is that instead of violently threatening me.... you were baselessly calling me stupid?? Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.

> you were baselessly calling me stupid?? No, I was saying your thinking on the matter was flawed; "baselessly" is in the eyes of the beholder, but even if I am wrong I think I had a pretty good basis for saying so. As I said in my original comment, I feel you were presenting a false narrative. > Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? Maybe you poste…

It WAS a personal attack that you did.

And you're still doing it!

"was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation."

"feels like a case of projection"

You're saying in so many words I'm stupid and not in control of my thoughts.

You have NO citations for anything you have said except for survival rate and you're manipulating that survival rate number by using people who are already infected versus general population survival rate.

You're spending all of your time telling me I'm projecting and not enough time having an actual valid point.

Not a single hospital was overwhelmed in the United States and numerous other countries.

Almost every state in the country has seen through the faulty science that you're promoting...and eliminated most of not all Covid restrictions and we're not even at a 50% vaccination rate and fatality and infection rates are at record lows and not a single hospital has overflowed or will.

So what you're saying is straight up wrong.

That's Facebook science.

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#99

Post by cbsmith »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #97
cbsmith wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on. Thanks for saying that dang. I really screwed up and I'm trying my best to make up for it, but I was starting to question whether I was even doing that right.

Your apology was saying you meant that I was stupid and it wasn't a violent threat. Some apology!

You must have missed it, but I also said, multiple times, I was wrong for making a derogatory statement.

I will also emphasize again that I never said you were stupid. I implied some of your statements indicated flawed thinking, and explained the flaws I perceived. As you yourself have pointed out, smart people can be wrong; pointing out a perceived mistake in your thought process isn't saying anything about you.

You've been pretty incendiary in your comments about what I've written. Applying the same standard here, do you feel you've been engaging in personal attacks?

Re: What we learned doing Fast Grants

#100

Post by cbsmith »

DrJones1098 wrote: post #98
cbsmith wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you were baselessly calling me stupid?? No, I was saying your thinking on the matter was flawed; "baselessly" is in the eyes of the beholder, but even if I am wrong I think I had a pretty good basis for saying so. As I said in my original comment, I feel you were presenting a false narrative. > Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? Maybe you poste…

It WAS a personal attack that you did. And you're still doing it! "was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation." "feels like a case of projection" You're saying in so many words I'm stupid and not in control of my thoughts. You have NO citations for anything you have said except for survival rate and you're manipulating that survival rate number by us…

> "was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation."

If assuming you are a reasonable and good person constitutes a personal attack, then I apologize and I withdraw the comment.

> "feels like a case of projection" > You're saying in so many words I'm stupid and not in control of my thoughts.

No.

If I thought you were stupid I'd not make reference to projection, as understanding cognitive bias and the ability to be self-aware enough to understand and/or perceive one's own cognitive bias requires a non-trivial amount of intelligence. If I thought you were stupid, I'd have expected that sentence to mean nothing to you... and cognitive bias, and in particular projection, doesn't mean someone isn't in control of their thoughts. Indeed, it means their thinking is very much driven by them.

> You have NO citations for anything you have said except for survival rate and you're manipulating that survival rate number by using people who are already infected versus general population survival rate.

First off: how is it not hypocritical & dishonest to be after me about not providing citations, claiming that you have "posted numerous references", while not actually providing references to anything about vaccines or covid?

I think you've forgotten the context of your statement. You said the "a disease that has a 99.99% survival rate". You weren't making a statement about general population survival rate, but about disease survival rate. General population survival rate isn't even relevant to the discussion. How would that even be relevant?

> Not a single hospital was overwhelmed in the United States and numerous other countries.

Again, a statement without references or citations. Allow me to Google "hospitals overwhelmed by covid-19" for you:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-overwhelmed...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/why-cal...

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/covid-19...

https://wamu.org/story/21/03/15/new-data-reveal-which-hospit...

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2021/01/04/nearly-half-...

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/07/9440212...

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-29/oxygen-s...

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/a-look-at-major-covid-...

At various times during this crisis, hospitals been transferring patients to other hospitals because of lack of capacity. They've been treating patients in emergency rooms instead of of ICUs. Across the country, field hospitals have been set up (at multiple points in time) because extant hospitals were overwhelmed. There's been a tremendous amount of effort put in to collating the data. Datasets on individual hospital capacity are available here: https://healthdata.gov/Hospital/COVID-19-Reported-Patient-Im.... You can read about some of the work collecting and collating the data here: https://github.com/CareSet/COVID_Hospital_PUF.

To provide some specific data from my neighbourhood (and from references provided above): in LA County, at the end of last year, five hospitals closed their facilities to all ambulance traffic (normally they do qualified restrictions). To be specific, MLK Jr. has a capacity for 131 patients, but had 215 patients (not the highest they reported either) reported in the new year: https://apnews.com/article/public-health-immunizations-coron.... The CMO at the USC Medical Center, Brad Spellberg, specifically said "When you walk into the ICU, and you see every bed occupied by a ventilated COVID patient...". LA PHS Directory Christina Ghaly said, "Ambulances are still having to wait many hours to offload patients to the emergency room."

> So what you're saying is straight up wrong. > > That's Facebook science.

Okay, so "Facebook science" is when someone says something that is "straight up wrong", as evidenced by... nothing beyond your assertions? What does that have to do with Facebook or science?

I had imagined "Facebook science" was something like the misinformation that was spread on Facebook about MLK Jr. NOT being overwhelmed: https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/01/06/yes-la-hospital...

If you aren't satisfied with my citations, you'll note this article provides its own.

Post reply on HN