Don't force me to fight an asymmetric warfare battle against malicious authors to participate.
"Weak" is the operative word. Being right doesn't do you much favors if you can't communicate it. In this context, "looking" weak is being weak.
No. Function over form.
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#flame-...
The people who already agree that the article is shallow learn nothing, and the people who don't know the article is shallow also learn nothing.
And I agree with you, position strength is tied to facts, which is why writing a shallow dismissal instead of listing some facts leads to a weak position.
Incidentally, why are you responding to me and not just saying "you're wrong, I'm done talking to you."
In that respect, ignoring, flagging, and shallow dismissals replies are three distinctly different outcomes with different utility to the users of this site.
I'll still say that the instances of HN moderation with which I have the greatest reservations tend to resemble what antisthenes describes above: poorly-conceived articles which would themselves be legitimately flagged and admonished if posted as HN comments to which the rather understandably heated or snippy response instead draws moderator action.
And yes, HN mods can't read everything or be everywhere,[1] so moderation is inconsistent, though I know what it strives toward.
And I can often identify how a response might have been improved or what elements run aground on HN's policies. I'm not convinced that the occasional exception or leniency would utterly wreck the ship (though having seen what, in dang's words things that strongly encourage that a "thread will lose its mind"[2] there's some reason for caution). But in a world where, to borrow from Tim Minchin, there's frequently a contingent which "keeps firing off clichés with startling precision like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition", diplomacy dikes do on occasion break.[3]
And tone-policing that, particularly unilaterally, strikes me as a greater wrong.
________________________________
Notes:
1. Which you've noted, 2 days ago <>>37225175 > and eight years ago: <>>9979719 >. Another HN perennial...
2. <>>22176686 > and <>>17689715 >.
3. Tim Minchin, "Storm" (2009), <https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Tim-Minchin/Storm>. Animated video: <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U> and live performance: <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=KtYkyB35zkk>.
One synthesis is this: wise strategies depend on the audience composition and time scale.
More people should learn wise ways to quantify future rewards. Reinforcement learning, economics, and finance cover some simple ways. One way is a constant discount factor, but it is not the only nor best way.
Like most clichés, this is easy to say, but hard to apply. It is imprecise and does not capture its own limitations. These three words don't move us forward; we shouldn't fixate on them; we must move beyond them.
Reality exists without perception. It benefits us to clarify the difference. Here are some clearer statements that reflect current philosophical and scientific knowledge:
1. We only perceive a small, incomplete, distorted portion of reality.
2. Human perception is a flawed but useful error-corrected simulation designed to help us survive.
2. Perceptions and beliefs strongly influence individual behavior.
3. Behavior is constrained by reality (perceived or not, believed or not).
4. Over a sufficiently long time scale, individuals and groups who understand reality have a survival advantage.
5. Perceptions can deviate from reality for arbitrarily long time periods.
I'll happily forfeit my right to remain aloof and to give no signs of engagement if I get annoyed to the point where I'd prefer to go to war.
And though I suspect dang would respond that everyone sees bias against their own specific viewpoint, this particular pattern seems persistent, plays into well-established truth-to-power dynamics (where truth is disadvantaged), and specifically as concerns policy, has been repeatedly defended by dang.
Put another way, HN's alignment is to curiosity and discussion rather than truth or fairness. I've already touched on many of the considerations that factor into this above, and why I remain unconvinced by those arguments.
One of my personal faves was responding to what struck me as a somewhat unthinking response to the true reality at the time of the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum by the 79 CE eruption of Mount Vesuvius, here: <>>22132283 >.
Another addressed common tropes from Wealth of Nations: <>>17965681 >.
I've increasingly taken to responding to highly disinformational or misinformed commentary by simply linking an authoritative rebutting item, occasionally quoting the specific element that addresses the point in question. E.g., <>>33999668 > and <>>27284014 >.
I'll also, when the argument seems to be circling rather than progressing, leave as my last response (if any) a link to a previous comment of mine in the thread, to make clear that I'd already addressed that point.
And much of that is not with the goal of convincing the person I'm responding to directly, but in addressing the wider audience. Though occasionally the former seems to occur: <>>36550938 >.
> Perceptions can deviate from reality for arbitrarily long time periods.
According to the theory, this is not [contained within] reality.
What if the "obviously" correct model you were raised on is not correct? Possible for Newton's theories, but impossible for something even more complex?