Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | happytoexplain's commentslogin

"Using your logic" is almost always an overreach that uncharitably extrapolates and puts words in a person's mouth, and this case is no different.

You used a generalization to attack the format of the message rather than its content.

If I rephrased it to a question about their thoughts how degree holders fit their model then suddenly it would be fine?


>It would be misleading to suggest that a single person with zero wealth has more wealth than 100k people’s wealth combined.

It wouldn't be misleading. You may have to explain it to somebody who has absolutely no understanding of how finance works, but that doesn't make the statement misleading.


This is distracting word-play. It's a problem for anybody wanting to have a child, including pairs of people. The parent's usage of the word "women" doesn't conflict with this unless you are a robot.

> One of the main arguments i've heard against the narrative that the feminist movement freed women to do whatever they want is that instead they are now expected to work for a living...I know you can poke holes in that argument, but i feel it has some substance.

The longer we go with a non-functional justice system, the less feasible it is to stay calm about crimes (this cuts in all directions).

Wait, what's wrong with Postgres? I'm not super experienced with DBs, but I thought Postgres was the engineer's choice.

There’s no need for a full-blown RDBMS for a simple blog

Right - I guess I would expect "No SQL" or "No database", rather than the specific call-out of Postgres.

The implication that having military strength is a prerequisite for having opinions about international policy is horrifying.

No offense but how is that not obvious by second grade. Don't have a big mouth if you don't have a big stick too. Ireland doesn't have quiet opinions, but a rather big mouth about other nations' foreign policy.

At my school there were a lot of big mouths and no big sticks. Non armed debate is a thing.

"Armed debate" is a misread. The point of my comment was that there is little sympathy for people that bite the hand that feeds them or talk themselves into situations they don't have the wherewithal to navigate.

Biting the hand that feeds is a nonsense characterization of disagreeing - even loudly - with the person who aids you. We do not own each other, as much as many of us would like to.

>Non armed debate is a thing

Until your mouth writes a check that your ass can't cash.


In your school. Where the kids were looked after by the teachers.

We can try having a non-armed debate with Putin, but I don’t think it’s going to be very productive.

Not that I'm recommending it but Putin's regime seems to behave much like the mafia and will get along with people who pay it protection money or ally with it.

You're absolutely right that this immoral principle applies in second grade. But humans advance from that point, not stagnate (often).

I find this position abject, but I'm curious what opinions are you talking about specifically. Can you elaborate?

Sure they have very extreme opinions about the Ukraine situation that they make very clear at every EU parliament meeting.

Can you point me to some examples? I have not followed closely but it seems that Ireland is on the same page as the other EU states in regards to supporting Ukraine.

I'm also curious about what you consider a "very extreme opinion" to be in this regard.


Here is a specific example where an Irish MEP specifically speaks against sanctions on Russia and against NATO donating any weapons to Ukraine in front of the EU parliament.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpieZnTQorQ

Here is a different Irish MEP saying similar things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo1tgWr0KXI


They are two MPs, they can say whatever they want. Sadly they don't reflect the position of Ireland, and I hope you are not trying to say that Ireland or Europe should abolish their internal democracy.

I say "sadly" because they're perfectly right. Daly: "the more arms you pump into Ukraine, the more the war will be prolonged, and the more Ukrainians will die [...] We will sit down with Russia, there will be a negotiated peace and this organisation should promote it earlier".

She said this three years ago: in the meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians have died, Ukraine has lost its territory anyway, we are sitting down with Russia and there is going to be a negotiated peace, and Europe is not part of it because it was never able to promote any diplomacy. Time proved her right on all points.


Yes, but as a general attitude, this is unrealistic, like ignoring the effects of drugs because they are voluntary. All these things (food, substances, sex, social media, etc) exist on an invisible spectrum of willpower vs circumstances for each individual. In practice, there's some subjective line in that spectrum across which society can't afford to just say "it's your fault, so I don't care" (though wealthy/isolated people can!).

Then we need to solve the problem through regulation. But just as with drugs we (not as single persons but as society) have decided that profits for some wealthy individuals are more important.

But as an individual you can just choose not to participate in social media, I wasn’t trying to invent some magic general attitude that solves all problems.

Also not sure if there is a “single” solution even possible, there is a lot more nuance and complexity to it.


Why this bitterness in defense of advertisers of all things? Engage with the comments, rather than disparaging them all from above in a blanket statement. They all have substance regardless of the details of the study.

This makes every single comment irrelevant/false?

The comments that assume this paper supports their claims about digital, TV, or radio advertising are not as supported as they seem.

Most comments are just airing opinions and grievances loosely related to the topic anyway.


I have never, even once, bought a product or chosen a brand based on advertising (of course you can point to subconscious conditioning, but that would not support the point you're making).

I’ve bought hundreds of products from ads. Most of them I wouldn’t have known about if not for the ads. And I’m pretty happy with all those purchases.

Great. So set your agent to “show me adverts” and let the rest of use set our agents to “don’t show me adverts”.

Then we come to the rub: if "don't show me adverts" suddenly made common tasks (checking email, using a search engine) cost a bit of money, how many people would go for that?

Quite a few. Hence people who pay for Netflix, YouTube, etc.

Certainly I don’t have adverts when I check my email, does Hotmail etc do adverts now? I’m sure they didn’t back in the early 00s.


Hard to tell, as those 2 specific services are currently monopolized by a company who refuses to offer those specific services ad-free

Email certainly isn’t monopolised! I can think of at least 3 mainstream search engines - although all advert driven

Look everyone, we found one!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: