throwaway_98554's comments

We all understood what he meant. But if you can provide a superior alternative conveying the same meaning succinctly, please do.

It isn't slow, nor click-driven.

On the contrary, because I know my users are on a desktop, most actions can be done with keyboard shortcuts.

This means you haven't tried it. Which means you're talking about something you don't know.

Dear old lady shouting at clouds,

The web is not about me. But the websites I create are not for everyone. They are for my users.

My users are professionals, on desktop, with a mouse and keyboard.

Knowing who are my users allows me to do better design. I make the best experience for THEM. Not for you, nor for all your friends using different hardware.

It doesn't mean I don't care about loading time or how things are displayed on the screen. It means I do so knowing in which environments it will happen. And yes, it might means you will be excluded.

Thefts, lies, frauds can and do happen everywhere. People follow incentives. If they can get away with it, many will do it. Be it investors trying to cash out with an IPO, or administrators of a government program.

The question is, what do you once you find out these people? To the gallows? Allow the blame to fall on the inevitable scapegoats? Inconsequential fine?

No, you are limited the number of children you'd have.

You can have a much bigger effect by getting rid of OTHER people.

Limiting your own consumption is completely counter-productive, as it leaves the resources to be consumed by those who do not share the same worries. They will simply have more resource available to increase their number and influence. (It's similar to those worrying about overpopulation and deciding to not having children : it's simply making sure the genes of those worrying won't make it to the next generation.)

In a non-policed commons situation, the only time it makes sense to try to shame people into consuming less is if they are your competition and you want to get rid of them.

No, I won't pardon your non-apology. He explicitly told you that diversity is an empty term and explained why. You even demonstrated it yourself in your other comment: you don't care about diversity, you care about people being judged on their competence alone.

You -say- you care about diversity, but that's not the explanation you've given. At best diversity is a tool to be used in the very particular case where it would help competence representation. By your comment, it would be in the case of untrue stereotypes.

"Exposure to the people we have those narratives about shows us how wrong they are."

The problem is that studies have shown that most stereotypes are true. (Really!)

This brings me to the next point : you somehow fail to mention the cases where it would be counterproductive to push for diversity, even if they are most cases. (At least for your stated goal.)

So which is it? Do you pursue diversity, or competence representation? If it's competence, will you accept to openly fight against diversity?

He made a point. You answered by avoiding the point. Instead you relied on dismissiveness, miscategorization, appeal to emotions and a little bit of passive-aggressiveness.

As per HN guidelines : "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

This subject appears dear to you, so perhaps you want to try again?

"Either you hire people regardless of their genders/religious group/sexual orientation or you make a conscious choice to reject candidates which are not in your approved list of "diversity" (whatever that means)."

Great, now I know how to frame someone using Bitcoin.

1. Select a victim 2. Every time you are about to make a Bitcoin transaction, send an email to the victim's address requesting the amount you are about to send. (Bonus point if you can get directly into the spam folder.) 3. Send bitcoins as you intended to do.

Now lay back and wait for your victim to be linked to your shady activities.

(I'm writing this as a critique of the technique used and conclusions reached in the article. Hopefully the investigation has something more robust.)

As another poster mentioned, "people will find just about any reason to believe they are better than other people".

Your intuition about racism/xenophobia is probably correct. But that's not the interesting question, given how widespread it is. What is more thought-provoking is why did this kind of behavior evolve? What was the advantage? Is it still advantageous today?

Because many people would get upset if "my-political-party" was hiring team of editors to change the wiki articles.

And if they are indeed getting paid, the organisation might have an important turnover. By using a single account (or multiple shared accounts; I doubt there's only one), you keep the 'prestige' you have built.

Your 1 week old new recruit can edit texts left and right while most people think it's a legit old wikipedians tidying stuff up.

Judging by the time card, I would bet multiple individuals are using this account. And they're probably getting paid to do it.

When exactly are people going to see that this isn't stopping with the Daily Stormer?

All those tech companies that spent years virtue signaling about a free and open web LIED.

Because many people on Hacker News think that caring about what women say is the same as bringing interesting and thoughts provoking topics.

And when pointing out that such content is not worthy, as per the site guidelines, people will at best ignore the policy, at worse say you're a sexist.

"after all the point of H-1B was never to get CHEAP labour, it was to get GOOD labour"

I find that to be naive. It's not because a politician says that something is for X that it's really for X.

Especially considering that if for some reason good labor was rare and in demand, it would mean higher wages for this good labor.

Follow the money...

"(...) then at the end of the term there should be a "job interview"-like process where it is determined if this person has brought enough value."

Why do you want to add citizenship to the deal? If the salary alone is not a good enough incentive, perhaps it needs to be higher. Otherwise you're just selling citizenship in exchange for lower wages.

Which one is closest to the original design?

> I grew up in a very privileged white world, with an attitude that I could always talk to the police because they were never interested in me. I felt that there would be unlikely to be an outcome where I got in any real trouble even if I had been breaking the law in some childish but “not actually bad” kind of way. Doing some dumb stunt or smoking a little weed - “nothing serious”.

What you describe as the "very privileged white world" sounds exactly how the citizen/police interactions ought to be.

It is a fragile balance that has been built and maintained by your society. The way you describe such as legacy is problematic, as people often see 'privilege' as something 'unfair', something to distance ourselves from. And by saying that the correct citizen/police interactions are a privilege, you push for everyone to average down, rather than make a better world for everyone.

You should instead focus on making sure everyone has the best chance of having a decent civil society. The best start is by using your everyday language as a way to anchor the correct interaction as the goal, not something to be avoided.

Ex:

"Last Friday night two officers brought me to my parents. I was a little too 'agitated'. It scared the shit out of me, but they let me go with a warning. I tell you man, I'm happy to have such friendly officers in my city." (<--- anchor it as a goal)

"My friend from a different place got in trouble with the police last week. It looks like it's a pattern. Hopefully we'll find what is causing this friction soon and stop this shit." (<--- point out it's an unwanted consequence and that something has to change.)