theyx's comments

US is a weak democracy, simple as that.

Also, industry-leading research? Those leaked internal data about instagram are worse than an undergrad term paper. Look at those n values, for something as big as Fb that’s not even serious research.

> tower pcs are often heavy to carry

Well, that’s why we have portable computers. This is like saying buses are bad for your physical health, because being ran over hurts you. Who even carries tower computers?

You are right, but we don't know how "successful" people got where they are. Look at E. Musk, for example. Widely taken as the pinnacle of success, with his education, fortune, "achievements" literally built either on his family's apartheid's fortune or on putting his name on other's successes.

Everyone knows why they applied, but for the benefit of employers, we have created a society in which it is not acceptable to say "I'm only here for the money, I literally do not care about your company."

Exactly this! I cannot believe someone is naïve enough to think total strangers will start caring about some company's progress, profits and reputation just because they are being paid minimum wage.

Sorry, literally 99% of people who are seen as "do-ers" or motivated are only putting up a show to be hired and to keep their jobs. Being hungry and homeless is a great motivator. None is genuinely excited about your business as much as you are, and if you require them to be, then pay them a CEO salary.

> caring for your own career.

It is often the problem that employers equate "caring for your career" to "caring for my company's profits".

Because some people convinced themselves that government is bad, even though democratic governments were the GOAL of almost every nation in the pre-independence days. If people cannot trust the institutions that they themselves built, it says more about the morals of those voting than about those so-called corrupt governments.

And watch what their family has done to put them in the condition they are today. Most rich people are rich because of inheritance.

The desired yeah, but unfortunately from my experience people don't like being corrected online, for -- as far as they know -- I may as well know nothing about what I am talking about. Plus, devoting the time to type out so many replies is not in most people's priority list.

Organizations like the Gates Foundation often bypass national governments and nationally-established health systems in order to push forward their own governance principles on health and healthcare. This often de-stabilizes local, on-going initiatives and de-legitimizes public healthcare efforts. Not to mention, the Foundation often prioritizes treating "the symptoms" with technical interventions, rather than building a resilient, holistic system to prevent diseases and health issues from arising in the future.

Some sources on the legitimacy and efficacy of their workings (within global health):

Doyle, C., & Patel, P. (2008). Civil society organisations and global health initiatives: problems of legitimacy. Social Science & Medicine, 66(9), 1928-1938.

Pfeiffer, J. (2003). International NGOs and primary health care in Mozambique: the need for a new model of collaboration. Social Science & Medicine, 56(4), 725-738.

Storeng, K. T. (2014). The GAVI Alliance and the 'Gates approach' to health system strengthening. Global Public Health, 9(8), 865-879.

Interesting distinction between east and west coast! Could it be because academic fields are less influenced by “looks and impressions”, while SV/technology fields are easily manipulated by people who appear to be experts?

As in: in academia if you say something, people are trained to analyze the veracity of that, and to judge you based on your methodological/academic rigor. Meanwhile, in SV people judge you on past projects and financial conditions, which are not tied to knowledge about reality at all. I don’t know if any of what I am saying is factually correct, I’m just guessing and wondering. Don’t take it as fact, just my biased, un-founded opinion created around what I see online.

You are right about HN folks. I asked this question prompted by a topic discussed here during the past week, in which many people were commenting and sounding like experts. But because I knew deeply about it (having written my Master’s thesis on it), I noticed how mistaken they were — despite making their opinions sound like facts.

It makes me wonder: should this make us disregard many more discussions? Because what if the comments on those are as “untrustworthy” as the comments shown in that thread I know about?

You are right. We run the risk of building a society (or at least an online environment) built upon the confidence/mistakes of the loud fools.

Should this affect our trust in news sources/online media (blogs, op-eds, articles)? If so, where do we draw the line between content worth reading and meaningless opinions?

Any data to back up the claim about zoomers?

I am a zoomer and none of the people around my age I know are anti-sex. If anything, we are all for (safe) sex without the constraints of social pressure/puritan morality.

Exactly. We live in a society with severe social stigma around sexual content/nudity. Even in the 21st century, or more liberal places like Europe, nakedness or sex are not to be shown as “daily human things” like cooking, for example.

As such, actors and especially actresses are of course averse to it. Not only because they grew up in our society, but because it often leads to the fetishization of their image. Do you want to be recognized for the acting you worked hard to learn, or for the 2 minutes of almost-explicit sex with a random person, being watched on-stage by several middle-aged men? One of this options celebrates your talents and hardwork, while the other puts you on the spot in an uncomfortable position with potential negative repercussions for your career.

That’s exactly this!!! Thank you very much.

To what extent you think this should affect our trust on news sources/websites like Hackernews?

If he had burned the money there would NOT be a huge favorable popular opinion about his "good deeds" (note the quotation marks, because they are only good for people unaware of their consequences).

So I don't think he would get the "same results" by burning the money.

Not providing proof and just anecdotal experiences won’t do your argument any good. Especially because that’s exactly how Ad companies/agencies got here in the first place, by saying it works without clear, verifiable ways to prove it: “yeah, it works, trust us, but we won’t let you see the data”