bxk1's comments

"Good faith", "bad faith" labeling is not logical, it's more of an attempt to apply morality and ideology to reasoning to reject something based on your own preferred beliefs and feelings. Similarly illogical is evaluating evidence "from each side", this is not how to evaluate anything, there needs to be some base rate to compare the evidence to and all the evidence has to be compared, not just something cherry picked from each side, and not just evidence, known unknowns and unknown unknowns have to be considered too, and so on. It's way more complicated than people want it to be.

And it's very hard to have good logical arguments not full of fallacies. You will certainly never see them in mass media, as mass media needs to influence your opinion, not provide background for making a good decision.

Daniel Kahneman in his Thinking fast and slow book wrote plenty on reasoning, check it out if you haven't, it'll open your eyes on reasoning (I know the book had some crucial things wrong for his theory, but a lot of things throughout the book are still ok).

COVID is as deadly as flu. Some people just underestimate flu, as if it's something not dangerous.

> that the pandemic was faked

Technically all pandemics are faked, because what is and isn't pandemic is more or less an arbitrary decision made by some official purely for propaganda and obedience reasons. It doesn't actually matter if it's called pandemic or not.

> how the rejection of evidence and conspiracy-theorizing are harmful

Evidence based reasoning is not much different from superstition, it could be just as harmful as rejecting evidence to whatever you think rejecting evidence is harmful. To illustrate how faulty that reasoning is, here you are rejecting evidence that there was a literal conspiracy against general population with some officials and institutions telling people that masks don't work, an evidence they are liars, but somehow you don't want to consider that evidence in your evidence-based reasoning and suggest that others should not reject evidence from liars.

Of course you can't just accept evidence if you want something more than a superstition level decision making. For that you need to actually think and calculate, with all those base rates and probabilities, use something like bayesian reasoning or whatever, do some science. Even just quickly estimating this is still better than "accepting evidence".

"Caddy has been acquired by the company behind ZeroSSL"

It does for most use cases where you want to run images meant for different CPU architectures, like amd64. It shouldn't if you want to run something meant for the same CPU architecture, which isn't going to be a thing for a long long time.

Why is it worse for society? Guilt is already an emotion that exists for society, not for self-interest, it relies on morals, which all are learned through other people. If people are leaning more towards denial, it means that the cost for an individual to do something immoral is already too high, doesn't leave much room for mistakes that people inevitably make from time to time, so more people denying might be a natural feedback loop to make more space.

Apart from an obvious problem of too many people having downvoting privileges, mods here also silently downweight some accounts even though they leave perfectly good comments. So there are two parts of this problem: mods being assholes towards some people regardless of their comments and mods letting too many people downvote comments. Same problem with flagging, except that flagging doesn't just make some discussions taboo, it also provokes mods to come up with a reason to issue a warning to silence such discussions even more if they feel like it.

But let's be honest, HN was never a place for dissenting views or "intellectual curiosity" as they used to say, it was always a very US, Silicon Valley capitalist-owned place, where the mods, YC tried to push people into one or another direction, push people to think certain way, suppress and disallow some viewpoints under various pretenses. I'm sure you've seen them claim guidelines breaking of people expressing some views, but never the opposite views if the views happened to be a common SV ideology (for example, I don't think I've ever seen an "let's ban sexist words" diversity activism being warned as "ideological flamebait" or such activists being banned, but it did happen with people holding the opposite views, just like it did with the guy from Google). All of this nudges people into echo chambers.

I'll add that it used to have more technical discussions a few years ago, but not so much anymore, you have to go to lobsters and reddit for that, even if they suck, they are at least still there.

That summarizes the problem with most of the articles and discussions on concurrency. People talking past each other because those who don't do much concurrency, especially complex concurrent software, haven't reinvented Erlang yet and don't understand what the fuss is about, and those who do can't explain in relatable terms how the actor model helps them organize concurrent code, preserve local reasoning, abstract, compose it, tolerate faults, etc. and eventually they stop bothering and so poor concurrency articles and comments continue to dominate the infospace.

Not sure if any of the travelling digital nomad lifestyle stories are even real, people who have managed to fly somewhere usually got stuck there for many months with all the touristy stuff not working and had to live like regular people, rent regular rooms, apartments, houses, shop at regular supermarkets, etc.