> All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time".
This is poppycock. Backing up all books -- the very action discussed by the person you're answering -- is by definition neither subjective nor subject to biases.
> This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased.
And even if the first quoted claim were true, this, too, clearly isn't. Nowhere does the comment you're answering imply that the bias or subjective rationale of an action should, ipso facto, discourage a person from taking it.
Your comment is replete with similar reasoning, so warped that it's difficult to characterize as anything other than in bad faith. Indeed, this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time -- excepting a couple of my snotty remarks on language or the quality of someone's writing.
I have no idea what response you expect, but the only one you deserve, I think, is one that just points out your dismissiveness, sarcasm, and breathtaking contempt. What an awful way to move through the world, let alone through HN.
1) tldr: you're wrong. I am not suggesting that "backing up books" is subjective or subject to biases. You'll need to reread my response: I'm talking about the judgement of doing so. And deciding that it is worthwhile (or not, as I joked with my made up 41%) is a judgement that is subjective and biased (if you subscribe to that sort of world view).
2) tldr: you're wrong. I openly indicate in my reply that I am exaggerating and extending his position (a reductio ad absurdam for you Romans reading this). However, he is suggesting that my position is wrong, or should give me reason to hesitate, as it might be "biased" et al. So I think my take is quite on the money. If you think your actions are biased and subject to historical revision, are you going to march along confidently? Or will your fingers tremble at the next book burning while you wonder "will history condemn me for this?"
3)tldr: you're wrong again. You resort to ad hominem attacks after demonstrating a complete inability to understand my position. I'd say you demonstrate both your intelligence (or lack thereof) and worth as a being (or lack thereof). I suggest you consider the unbiased subjective absence of your existence as a priority.
4) tdlr: I expected nonsensical windbaggery, and you delivered! Thank you. You advanced exactly zero of the positions involved and reduced this thread to garbage. YOU are the cancer killing the internet. Have a nice day.
This is poppycock. Backing up all books -- the very action discussed by the person you're answering -- is by definition neither subjective nor subject to biases.
> This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased.
And even if the first quoted claim were true, this, too, clearly isn't. Nowhere does the comment you're answering imply that the bias or subjective rationale of an action should, ipso facto, discourage a person from taking it.
Your comment is replete with similar reasoning, so warped that it's difficult to characterize as anything other than in bad faith. Indeed, this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time -- excepting a couple of my snotty remarks on language or the quality of someone's writing.
I have no idea what response you expect, but the only one you deserve, I think, is one that just points out your dismissiveness, sarcasm, and breathtaking contempt. What an awful way to move through the world, let alone through HN.