justinlaster's comments

It didn't go over my head. You're just deluding yourself.

>I'm drawing attention to the fact that they recive similar amounts of money and yet produce faaar more output then the Clinton Foundation and that's with the Red Cross being corrupt as hell.

Except they do not; at the very least you do not have any substantive evidence to back up that claim. Notice you could not source any of your examples, because they're not based on anything. They're just hypothetical scenarios with extremely arbitrary numbers and extremely contrived scenarios.

How come you did not source any examples from your other chosen charities to state they're actually "outputing" far more dollar for dollar? You were only extremely liberal with one -- going so far as to make up examples for it (despite most likely not having experience any relevant field for each charitable service). Why is that?

You claim the links you provided somehow qualify as "tangable" results, used as evidence for your overall point. Yet you chose to not link the equivalent pages from the clinton foundation website. Why is that?

Stop using conspiracy theories as facts.

You're concern trolling. The information is readily out there.

Your question puts forth a sense of "genuine" curiosity, but then later you compare the work the of the Clinton Foundation to that NAACP and Red Cross, and make judgements around that. So you presume to not know any charity work that's been done by the foundation, yet you're able to compare it to other charities. Why be so disingenuous?

The Clinton Foundation website has a litany of literature on its efforts around the world. Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation on overall 94.74/100 score [0].

In short, kindly fuck off out of here with what is either out right lies or willful ignorance.

[0]: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...

Politics is intertwined with everything. Not sure why you're trying to draw a line here.

Start ups are extremely "people" based entities. If you think the ACLU doesn't fit in with the YCombinator landscape -- given recent events -- then I'm not sure what I can really say to paint a more vivid picture to make you understand.

> I get the feeling conservatives may not feel welcome at YC.

Sounds like a personal problem. "Oh no, an organization that defends people's liberties is making me feel uncomfortable!"

>I bet you can get a lot of reddit gold thrown your way to start one...

That shade!

I wasn't talking about large enterprise corporations. I still don't see how you lose "chance encounters" over an online medium, especially when everything is in text and you are constantly just a few characters away from each other. There is more opportunity for other people to chime in, or think about an idea, or share their idea.

Your example seems really, really contrived.

I'm finding the exact opposite? Do you have any concrete examples that you would care to provide in the spirit of intellectual honesty?

>If you think "but everything alters your chemical makeup" is a sufficient rebuttal

Considering that the original claim had no depth to it what so ever other than attempting to grandstand, it is odd you feel to have two completely different standards here. You have to point out why it isn't a sufficient rebuttal other than saying it doesn't. Time for some intellectual honesty. Or you can just blanket label people that consume certain things as having a "crutch" with absolutely no basis for such a claim.

> when all it's proven is otherwise.

Where's the evidence for this?

It's not a "ridiculous position". It's a succinct rebuttal of a position that serves no purpose other than to grand stand. Evidence based perspectives are not intellectually dishonest.

>A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.

This is so vague. Ironic that you feel the need to claim I am being intellectually dishonest. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself compared to when I eat sugar? Based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is no. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself than when I drink coffee? Again, based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is probably no. In fact caffeine is more likely to be harmful to me for a multitude of reasons.

>group look bad by such poor arguments.

Meanwhile, the entirety of your statement is condensed down into "lol bad argument." Also, I don't actually smoke marijuana (I've tried it, it was "okay"), so your personal appeals are not only completely irrelevant and self-serving, they're useless as well.

You would do well to take all your charged criticism at my statement and apply it to your own; it fits it a bit better.

You can try to hyperbolically describe it as a "crutch", but if you're just going to ignore that you are in fact constantly chemically altered then I'm not sure what to tell you. The whole "be your own man" is baseless feel-good ego massaging.

I called this out a few months ago, and got told by a moderator to not employ conspiracy theories.

Yet, week by week, I watch as brand new accounts show up on these types of posts to spout the same short-sighted, toxic talking points that always get vomited out by Trump supporters. They don't say anything related to technology, they always tend to comment on political posts. I've been watching a few accounts and there has been no change in behavior.

This is not a left vs right issue. A lot of these people forgo basic philosophical principles about knowledge, and seem to shun any use of logic and reason (part of the reason you will not get anywhere by engaging them, they simply don't care).

This is such a stupid talking point. It's like me setting up a bunch of gas canisters and then someone else coming in and burning those canisters, and then that person proclaiming "I didn't put the canisters there though."

>Showing up at the office on time is a first-line test of dependability.

If you truly believe that, your opinions are severely lacking some level of realistic perspective.

We are anything if not constantly chemically altered. From the food we eat, to the drinks we consume, to the things we inhale.

I strongly disagree. In fact, I'm of the opinion these days that if you can't communicate effectively and proficiently over text, you're in the wrong field; at the very least I'm going to question how much you are "with it."

There is nothing stopping a completely remote company from having "jam" sessions between developers. Is there any solid evidence that working in an office together yields a better work product? We see plenty examples of products that are built by completely remote organizations, and no one has ever pointed to them and gone "man, if only they worked in a face to face situation this would be so much better!"

And where did I say you were? There you go again. Stop trying to waste people's time and be constructive about something.

Yes, racists tend to be in the Republican party. That is not saying that all Republicans are racist. Or that there is some intrinsic quality about republican and racist. Although it should make you question why you're apart of the same party given certain platform agendas recently.

I am not going to explain this further, as you are borderline trolling.

Except it's not.

Not a very reasonable analogy at all. Of course you and your ilk need to resort to such nonsense to waste everyone's time.

No it isn't. He's advocating for publication of data. No where does that align with a climate change "skeptic"