skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Whenever people say mental illness in the same sentence as issues relating to transgendered people: first you don't care about them. The phrase "mental illness" is never used to uplift people in America. It is seen as derogatory. This is why we have HIPPA; so you can see a professional and talk about serious issues without stigma.

Most western countries are fairly free. You are free to do what you want within a couple of reasonable limits. If you want to act in ways that are normally associated with the opposite gender, go for it. There's nothing wrong with that and that's how society and culture change.

When someone looks at themselves in the mirror every morning and sees something that isn't them; e.g. if they see a fat person when they're 160cm and 45kg .. that's dysphoria. It can lead to anorexia and other forms of self harm.

When people feel they would be better off without and arm or a leg, and then find a surgeon to preform an unnecessary amputation, some will preform it just so they don't try to harm, and potentially kill, themselves. But there is a disconnect there with what they see and what they are.

When someone sees themselves in a mirror and see the biological gender they aren't born with, and desires to mutilate their genitals .. well that is their right. You can do what you want to your body, just like the person who wants to amputate their arm or starve themselves. But if you try to have that conversation in today's world -- it is a very difficult one to rationally have.

If you actually cared about the person, you don't throw around words like "mental illness." You do that because you hate. You are the reason we can't have these very real conversations.
I agree. I also don't have a good solution, unfortunately.
It’s about getting together as a team, not a company picnic...
And Google will happily deindex the site as soon as they find out
Where "probably" is a subjective sense being carried forward by a mob who presume to have an infallible sense of truth and have no qualms with applying their certainty toward shutting down anyone who Bad Speaks.
Evidence and scientific inquiry are not bigotry.
[1] had almost 100 citation in its first 3 years, while [2] still has no citation by anyone else other than its author. If [2] really had discredited an entire field of research, I'd imagine that anyone at all would talk about it even once.
"If only all medicine were evidence based medicine..." Careful what you wish for, I guess.
New Yorkers have been dealing with Trump’s bullshit for far longer than the rest of us.
> Ethereum still has over two times as many full nodes as Bitcoin.

Completely and utterly false. Bitcoin has 160,000+, and Eth has 29,000 (hey! isn't that special. 29k instead of 25k). Eth used to have 75,000 nine months ago.

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar...

You only want to count listening nodes, you're not going to get a full picture, are you? That's the great thing about bitcoin. Anyone can run a node. Anyone can be a peer in the peer-to-peer cash of bitcoin. Most of the peers in bitcoin are only interested in validating their own transactions. That's what makes it so secure. So many independent peers validating their own transactions.

You wouldn't understand.

> I'd rather Ethereum users poll multiple trusted third parties

Trustful blockchains. You should write a white-paper about your new tech.
But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are.

That doesn't mean those sides are equal. Take anti-vaxxing and young-earth creationism: do they offer any truth or useful insights for policy proposals?

e: Another point: why should I not hold animosity towards hucksters who hamper efforts to slow climate change, or indirectly cause deaths from preventable diseases?
in reality it means paying taxes so the CBC can make a shitty Canadian version of Law And Order that no one watches

almost none of the "Canadian" content relates any national values...it is almost uniformly just garbage remakes of US shows
If a white male (the google guy) can get fired for being open about his views, imagine how tough it can be for minorities to be open about their views!

It’s like everyone knows they are in an echo chamber but not daring to be the first one to speak up.
Their business model failed from day one. You only pay in bitcoin until you realize how much gain you lost, then you hold instead.
You’re probably right to some degree, but remember that your argument is bi-directional.

(I’m sure someone can explain this better, but I’ll give it a shot.)

As a silly example, let’s say 85% of an area believes that carbonation is harmful to health. 10% are indifferent, and 5% believe that it’s good for health.

One carbonation lover happens to be bold enough to drink carbonated beverages in public. Many bystanders walk past thinking, “Wow - that guy is nuts. But, oh well, it’s his life.” One of the carbonation haters walks by and happens to be bold enough to challenge the guy and say, “Drinking carbonated beverages is stupid, man!”

The carbonation lover and hater then get into a visible argument. Naturally, a few more people get involved in the discussion. Ultimately, outnumbered, the carbonation lover goes home feeling misunderstood and defeated.

He meets up with a buddy of his at the carbonation lovers group, and they trade similar stories and conclude that the area is just intolerant of carbonation lovers. The next time, they decide to drink in public more defiantly and with some defensiveness. They start to wear T-shirt’s that say, “Carbonation is not a crime!”

What they missed is that for that one person out of 100 who challenged them in public, 84 walked by and didn’t.
Is anybody working on that?
I read it and I think it was just as bad as people said. It just happened to be stated in friendly, neutral-sounding language.
Huh, ok. Thanks for quick answer.

Edit: Looks like you edited your answer to include flamewar info. That makes a ton of sense.
I created one in JS a couple of years back for fun (not as clean as I’d like, but I did it in an hour or two of work: https://github.com/wesleycho/secret-santa

It’s a surprisingly fun little problem
Why not let ideas be judged on their own merit, rather than pre-judged and banned from conversation?

Everyone likes to use examples like racial differences as an example. How about something more gray? Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Or is that another one of those ideas that "don't deserve a seat at the table"?
Right, which is fine but I just wanted the above comment to stop playing hide the ball. He was fired for his political views.
Wow.

Scientific censorship in the US.

I'm speechless.
That's a good point to bring up.

I don't think those people were silenced.

They went to a public protest in a public place to make a statement. That statement was broadcast across the country and the world. The opposite of being silenced.

Now, they faced consequences for what they said. But that's what happens when you say things. Words have meaning and you can say words which will cause people to no longer want to associate with you.
This is not about free speech. It is perfectly acceptable for an organization to offer guidance and perhaps impose restrictions on how their own employees portray a topic publically in the name of PR and hopefully even compassion for their human audience. In other words the government can agree not to use certain words in public communications. This is very different from policing the general public when say talking about the CDC. That would be unconstitutional.

Do I agree with this personally? I dont know. It's probably better to offer a style guide for reasons other comments have already covered.
> and original vision

Where in the original white-paper is the emergency difficulty adjustment?

https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-cash-difficulty-adjust...

> peer-to-peer

If you don't run a node, or you can't run a node because of resource requirements, you're not a peer.
What's your point? Does that somehow give all future administrations carte blanche?
It is a problem, but a technical problem thats well understood within the relevant communities. A quantification of "various tolerances" is one notion of diversity, but as you have deftly pointed out there are many other quantifiable notions that are endlessly debated (some links in the context of ecology: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=%22...). Usually "diversity" is reported in terms of well defined quantitative metrics so that even if the umbrella term "diversity" is ambiguous it typically has well defined meaning(s) in the context of any particular study. All of which is to say, I would wager that the vast majority of scientific reports (and perhaps also those coming from the CDC) use the term "diversity" to introduce a general concept of a measure of heterogeneity which is quickly made precise within the study.
When I was a kid in a deeply religious community I never could keep my mouth shut and irritated a lot of folks until I was big enough to leave home which I did at the stroke of 18. This cost me a lot of effort and struggle and I had to make my own way and was behind others who just went along.

Because what I saw were a bunch of smug, self righteous hypocrites with a dubious moral code based on non-realistic understandings proffered by cynical opportunists who's real agenda was far from what they preached.

Remaining true to myself, to my understanding of objective reality, to not be afraid to give voice to that reality was every bit worth it then and it's worth it now.

Smug hypocrites suck and it isn't worth becoming one at any price, no matter what flavor the unrealistic hypocrisy and groupthink is.
> I agree with your overall point, but this tactic seems almost as disingenuous as the other side.

I don't actually advocate that Marxists be ejected from the public sphere. I'm merely pointing out that if we are going to start ejecting people for "dangerous speech", they are the obvious first candidates.
>Fuck

Not the best example. The government censors this word for non government employees (radio, TV).
2018 में नये साल पर 100 साल बाद बन रहा है ऐसा महासयोग इन 5 राशि वालो पर लूटेगा
We've been in 1984 for much longer than this administration and the previous and the one before that. We've been in Orwell's world longer than I've been alive and longer than my parents have been alive.

Obama spent ever day of his tenure at war and bombing people with drones. Bill Clinton was very anti-immigration. Web and Rupert revealed how the CIA was funneling cocaine into the US from South and Central America.

This has been happening a long time. President Twitter's idiocy is just batshit insane enough that people yell about it now, but it's all there to make us angry and mad at one another. This is just another thing to make us angry. We are in the 24/7 hate.
Useless bureaucracy and admin making up their own rules to shove down an agenda down our throats. Right or left, this is wrong and I hope the conservatives and libertarians on this board oppose this. I understand excluding diversity because it gets paraded around everywhere and perhaps is not related to the CDC's budget proposals but the rest are very science based and I'm 90% sure diversity is the most accurate term to describe a lot of health related information.

Linguistics is important, words are important and there is a culture war happening around words politically from both left and right. The left has been far more aggressive, but the last year the right has been doing the same. Diversity, feminism, multiculturalism, globalism, transgenderism have now turned from something neutral/positive to something negative now and synonymous with a negative connotation.

That being said, I'll wait and see why the CDC is doing this. The only word that seems glaringly alarming to me is fetus. Pro or anti-abortion, being able to describe a fetus is mandatory and excluding that might force the CDC to not discuss that aspect with as much detail or even a more nefarious purpose.

Transfenderism is something the left has completely banned any debate about and the right have coined with mockery and derision. Gender dysphoria may be a better word to use, but I wouldn't know because of the extremely politically charged environment. This is also pushing an agenda, but might be the correct term, at least historically in the medical sense, but I'm almost certain it's still pushing down political agenda even if transgenderism is not the correct term to use.

Entitlement, evidence and science based don't make sense to me. Maybe it's too vague sounding and leads to credibility to the layman when there is little? I guess you could make anything sound factually true by using those words but it doesn't make sense why they'd exclude them.

Basically, freedom of speech isn't a left or right issue. Both are guilty and we as Americans should call out any bullshit on both sides because it's a very, very dangerous, slippery slope and I'm glad tbere's an uproar rightfully for this
Utilitarianism will let you justify anything if you frame it right, including white supremacy, fascism, etc. This isn't something evidence and reason alone can handle.

Ethically and morally, as a society, we have to choose what behavior is okay and what isn't. What's happening right now is that we're verbalizing the changing of those definitions to include things like "'Grab them by the pussy' and other transparent actions of sexual harassment are not tolerable ways to treat women in 2017," in response to a wide number of people coming forward to complain about it all at once, for possibly the first time in history.

And understandably some conservative people who grew up in the "Mad Men" era (when these kinds of things were acceptable) are unhappy with those changes and inevitably writing articles like this one, thinking that the vast majority of people being upset with them for their now antiquated beliefs and speech is equal to the suppression of that speech. No, we aren't chilling your speech. Society is asking you to change your behavior and mocking you for not being able to. We went through this with women's suffrage, the civil rights movement in the 60s, and now we're going through it again with the #MeToo movement.

I'll defend to the death your right to say something stupid. That is your constitutional right in this country, and we have to stand by that to keep our democracy alive. But you had better believe I will call you stupid to your face for saying it, probably with a sarcastic and mocking tone befitting your stupid statement.
Not all words are same.

Some words are good.

Some words are bad.
So if a company decided to fire someone because they supported legalization of hard drugs (another controversial topic), including giving money to political organizations, you'd fully support them?

Or it crystal clear that legalization of hard drugs is one of those ideas that is so obviously right than any opposition to it should be squelched?
HN's definition of 'interesting' is for practical purposes pretty established. Of course we don't all agree, but there's enough of a stable core that I wouldn't say it changes much.
If people don't understand that bcash is under regulatory capture of the chinese government, then they are not understanding how cryptocurrencies work.
I could not disagree more. You do not preserve your right to free speech by defending the popular opinions. The way you loose your rights is when someone that hold unpopular opinions gets their rights limited. Are you so sure that all the opinions you hold and will hold can be expected to be rightthink for as long as you live?

If you study history the decline of many great countries have started with a censorship of unpopular opinions and shaming as well as ostracizing of anyone that think wrong:

- Struggle session in Communist China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

The end destination for this kind of thinking is Orwellian thoughtcrime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime).
?

I'm not sure what you're responding to in my comment.
From the perspective of a professional resume editor/writer...make sure to have a boilerplate version and then match each CL against the job description. The "art" of the process is to provide just enough enticement, the appetizer in other words, to make the reader want to move onto the resume. Also try to be more creative in your writing so that you don't say the exact words from the job description unless it is a highly specialized role. You want to stand out from the crowd of applicants.

Try at all possible to find out if a cover letter is even necessary. Many employers don't ask for them, don't want them, ignore or throw them away. I have know individuals who have spent hours on theirs unnecessarily.

Regrettable the "rules" are all over the place because different employers require different things. Try to do some legwork before hand by inquiring with HR or referring employees.

HTH,

Vince Fulco, CFA, CAIA
vfulco[@]weisisheng.cn
Indeed - were the price to charge commercial vehicles close to the ridiculous $1 million/hour, and traditional owner rate was unchanged, Supercharger slots would open.
I'm not aware of San Francisco censoring the CDC. And should you point me to such a thing happening, I would certainly be against it.

If maneesh's or your point is that you somehow cannot be against this without also being hypocritical, please check your assumptions. "You're likely doing it yourself" is complete bs.
No. I don't see how distributing new money is going to automatically increase the price elasticity of demand universally across all consumer sectors when the net worth of recipients will not have the same amount of money left in their bank case as some people would be willing to save more than others, and vice versa. Sure, some goods might see increase in price elasticity but not from the increase in number of people who want to buy goods but who can actually afford them which is exactly where we were before except now some people are building their savings I guess is good.
It depends on the religion. The modern Catholic Church now accepts that evolution through natural selection occurs, and they no longer claim that the Earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago.
I'm not a mob. This is just me.

I don't shut anybody down. My time and attention are limited resources, and I don't like wasting them in a discussion that the other party is using in bad faith. To that end, I avoid starting questions that (through experience) tend to go down that path.

Like I said in the GP, I don't find the discussion itself objectionable. I've just applied a heuristic to determine who I have the discussion with.
I think part of the issue is the tactics. The original post was pointing out that the way that bad ideas are being defeated is through force, not through reason. If the law says "Be happy or else" everyone is "happy". The problem being pointed out is that SV is becoming a place where you must believe the right things or else. The or else part is what makes it McCarthyistic.
The difference is TV and radio station operators choose what we consume. On the Internet, we choose.

As an American your opinion really doesn't matter here... it's American influence these laws were created to limit.
Nodes define and police consensus in bitcoin, not miners.
> If you actually cared about the person, you don't throw around words like "mental illness." You do that because you hate.

I think you're too absolute there. Certainly many people can talk about mental illness and the mentally ill without hateful intent.
Twine (YC W18) Is Hiring a Senior Front-End Engineer
Twine helps people find jobs they love inside their companies. And we help companies keep their best employees by addressing the #1 reason for employee turnover: lack of career development opportunities.

We recently raised several million from Fortune 500 CEOs and former heads of engineering at Square and Facebook. Now we're hiring our first front-end engineer.

You'll own projects across the stack, but with a focus on building beautiful, intuitive functionality and experiences for our users. As a founding senior engineer, you'll have massive impact on our growing product and team.

If you're an expert in JavaScript/React and modern web APIs, we'd love to hear from you! Please reach out at jobs@twinelabs.com
Hehe yes, that's the general conclusion. I'm not sure if I should name names. (Ah well) The guy I'm talking about is Azlan Iqbal, a Malaysian CS professor. I know him as the writer of numerous wacky articles on ChessBase (leading chess news site) about his chess+computer studies. People criticize his shoddy work in the comments, and he says, nay, jeers they're not qualified to judge because they didn't read his uni thesis, dont know CS, dont understand his algorithm, etc. Kind of amazing. I guess he can't be an impostor in CS, but most of his published articles are about computers + chess, with the Dunning-Kruger effect in full flight. I guess you have to know a bit about chess to fully realize how inept his stuff is. But just the embarrassing way he attacks all critics in the comments is remarkable. Although the CB readers largely ignore him now. See the stories with most comments to see what I mean. [0]

Are there a lot of people like this? Or worse?

[0] https://en.chessbase.com/author/azlan-iqbal
Yes, free speech does not apply to private companies. It does apply, somewhat different, to federal organizations. Same with copyright law (federal works cannot be copyright).

This particular issue gets very murky with the CDC and official documentation designed to inform the public.
Spotify Could Get a Little Wild When It Goes Public
Clean – A functional programming language
The main trouble with -sexual as a catch-all is it's too narrow. Gender and sex have been conflated for a long time in the English-speaking world, but people are becoming more aware of the great variety in both.
If only George Carlin were still alive. I’m sure he’d have seven words to use to respond to this...
Name some of these remakes of American shows, please.
These "Silicon Valley and free speech" articles are so laughable that it is hard to believe that they are taken seriously in HN. It is literally a first world problem. Compare this to the other #1 article where Trump admin is literally banning words in CDC, Project Veritas is sending fake people to malign journalism, an out of control President is on constant tirade against media, mention of climate change is systemically purged from government websites. Those are serious issues
> they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others.

This reads like a parody.

Memorizing a list of definitions isn’t going to accomplish much of anything, any more than memorizing a list of equipment names will turn someone into a doctor or engineer. These are tricky concepts/tools, and wielding them properly takes serious expertise.

Students need (years of copious) experience reading, making, and analyzing increasingly subtle and sophisticated arguments with significant amounts of feedback from other students and expert teachers/mentors to come to a journeyman-level understanding of logic and rhetoric. Critical introspection is even harder; adults have trouble with it after decades of liberal arts education, professional school, work, personal relationships, meditation, therapy, ....
I hold citizenship in both countries
Which is fine but the parent comment was trying to say he wasn't fired for his views. He was clearly fired for his political views.