It's not just getting the facts wrong, it's often about them misunderstanding the topic entirely because they didn't bother to read.
I don't think it's about being human, I think it's because HN is a BBS where people can get points by chatting, which also happens to link to articles which you can read if you feel like it. Of course this is how it ends up.
People play the game according to the rules they're given. In the early days when HN was more caustic, you got more points by reading the articles and posting accurate facts. But in the dang era where comments are required to be nice and calling people out is discouraged, you get more points by rushing to post something plausible-sounding and vaguely related to the headline. So people do that instead, unsurprisingly.
Indeed, the rules are slanted to give bad-faith word-salad as much of an advantage as possible. Even the site's layout is hostile to correcting those posts; in addition to the rules prohibiting us pointing out that the article doesn't say what they claim (because we cannot directly imply that they did not read), the formatting of quoted text is messed up and ugly and distracting.
On this current account, I don't really care about overall karma, just per-post karma. I try to post simple but defensible points when I get early top-level timing, and I put effort into upvoting people that I agree with rather than adding on yeah-me-too posts for more karma. But I'm punished for not playing by the rules of the game; I can't downvote or vouch or any other useful features, so (-1, flagged) is a common fate.
In the design circles that I frequent, we often consider Conway's Law for social communities. The API of HN, including the rules, generates the shape of the conversations. The shittiness of discourse here is inherently due to the low-quality rules just as much as the lack of meta-moderation.
This is a solved problem in many other countries. Instead of proposing some new solution maybe it would be better to copy an existing which has already proven to work.
In Sweden, BankID covers well over 90% of the population between ages 20 and 60 with a unique electronic ID. (Including 98% of those between 20 and 40.) It supports identifying yourself with a credit card and pin using a card reader given to you by your bank or alternatively (and more commonly) a pin combined with a smartphone/computer that you have identified as being yours.
BankID covers well over 90% of the population between ages 20 and 60
What do the other 206,868 people do?
If a similar system were implemented in the United States, that would leave 6,514,383 out. What do you do with six million people who can't be part of the standard ID scheme?
And as a result we have a lot of bank accounts hacked over phone because people don't know how to use it. Or more importantly how NOT to use it. All it takes is a phonecall to someone, tell them someone is trying to hack into their bank account and they need to hurry and ID themselves because the thief is running off with their pension. The police get these kinds of cases every day.
I love BankID but I have been using it since the start and know the pitfalls to watch out for. Most people does not know the problems though.
You're going to have a hell of a time trying to sell that to 50 states and a handful of territories, all of which can't even implement REAL-ID properly.
What agency manages BankID in Sweden? I would imagine in a better world, the US Postal Service could be doing some of this work in the states at a federal level, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
I'm not here to babysit you. If you were serious about wanting to make a suggestion you would have started by looking at the current solutions. Not doing that is just a waste of screen estate.
Why do you prefer a definition that is achievable?
What you describe is of course good, but maybe we could just call that a welfare society or some other words. Giving people the bare minimum won't automatically make their lives fair.
If you leave a pan with oil on the induction stove and then "quickly check the mail in the other room while it heats up" you might come back to an unpleasant surprise of burning oil...
in the US natural gas stoves are very common. There is some risk when frying on high heat that you could start an oil fire... Never used induction but gas offers very fine control of heat with a nice stove, especially compared to electric which relies on radiant heat from a coil and cannot change temperatures rapidly
I had induction for nearly a decade and am now back on gas. I miss the ease of cleaning that induction offers, and the efficiency for things like boiling water. [1]
But if you use woks or other vessels that do not entirely touch the stovetop surface, gas is better. I made fried rice the other day on my gas stove, and it was a completely different experience than induction. The sides of the wok just heat up so much more than with induction.
Of course, it's a huge pain to clean all the tiny grains of rice that drop onto the stovetop. I wish kitchens had dual stovetops, with maybe 2 gas burners and the rest induction. But I've never seen a home like that; even high-end homes have either a nice gas range or an induction ranges.
fun fact: Menlo Park recently outlawed gas for new constructions. I imagine most folks will go to induction, which has previously been relatively rare here.
Bosch for example has a modular system where you can mix and match technologies. They have a 6 kW gas burner available in it [1] which can be matched up with a nice induction top [2].
I've had direct on coil and behind glass induction, and vastly prefer gas. I get way more heat, like far too much at max, on the gas stove, which is a good thing because I can actually control the level of heat output, rather than just the length of the oscillations between on/off on the induction stove. I have a few steel pans and a few cast irons, and for all of them the gas stove heats more evenly, offers finer control of the heat level, and can reach a much higher heat faster than any of the three induction stoves I've had the pleasure of renting over the years, some brand new. Gas ovens are better too, all the electric ovens I've had ran cold relative to the indicated temp, which meant changing cooking times and temps, and had a pretty embarrassing broil setting compared to what you have on gas (a proper inferno)
Sure, you have to take off the grates to clean, but after you spend those 10 seconds to remove the grates its no harder wiping crusted food off of a flat steel surface than a flat glass one.
Inductions are electric and does not have the issues you mention. But I see. For some reason natural gas didn't pop up in my head. Where I live nobody use those.
His point was that the software itself is insecure and installing it on your machine is a security issue, regardless of the content you're hosting using it.
The quote explicitly states that this is per quarter. Let's say "tens of millions" means 30 millions. So that's 10 million per month. If there are 500 people that's an average cost of 20K/month per person. I assume many people will have much lower salary but I also assume there will be infrastructure costs.
Can you clarify how it's hyperbole? Did you read it as being a yearly cost despite the quote referring to it as quarterly?
If someone disagrees, it is reasonable to expect them to explain why instead of merely dismissing it.
Also, I think my generalised statements - and generalised statements have value and meaning - are quite self-evident and already well understood concepts among HN readers.
However, here they are explained one minor level further:
- Software can be patched. Hardware can only be thrown out.
- Open-source can be far more easily audited. Closed-source software has to be reverse-engineered by the user at best.
- Full control of encryption means the user has the ability and responsibility to control all aspects of access to the keys.
I now invite you or others to explain your disagreement.
> After reading this article you weren't sure what Nato was referring to? And thought maybe it was a political figure? Sorry, I can't believe that.
At least for me, the confusion was cleared up immediately after looking at the article, but that doesn't mean this style of headline isn't any less confusing. After all, lots of places (like HN) only display the headline.
I don't think it's about being human, I think it's because HN is a BBS where people can get points by chatting, which also happens to link to articles which you can read if you feel like it. Of course this is how it ends up.