This implicitly claims that your identity isn't even loosely coupled to "izzydata". A quick google shows twitch, youtube, twitter, etc. If these are in fact, you, then it is highly likely you could be identified. If you can be identified, you can be harassed.
Can you say X comes at the cost of Y and Z? A and B in the previous example were products. Y and Z in your example are attributes of the products A, B and C. Pedantic, but less confusing.
You could argue it would be bigger. Instead of working around Travis to connect to repositories, the repositories are there. That's the biggest sell for me, anyway.
This realization is super assuring with the complexity of the discoveries broadcast on HackerNews. Sometimes it's overwhelming, but now I can think of it as a sort of... scale.
Gas lighting doesn't change the tone of your rhetoric. Drawing conclusions from what you said isn't a big stretch, given that you were dismissive, and clearly invested in the scientific portion of the MIT statement:
> Science and all that
Really sounds like you chose MIT. You know there's a part in there where they acknowledge climate change? That's pretty important.
It's been difficult to take anyone seriously that has a problem with people they label as "Social Justice Warriors". Also, this isn't the sort of rhetoric I enjoy seeing on HN.
It's important to note that they also specifically called out the President-Elect for his Climate-Denying statements.
Him being racist – and a denier – make this incredibly important.
Why is this important? They are in a position of scientific authority, and they are opposing a position of government authority. He is incorrect, he is ascending to power, and this sets their authority against his authority.
This is about who you trust for your information and who will help shape your opinion. An esteemed educational institution, or a racist demagogue? Sounds to me like you've already made your choice.
I don't know if I agree with this generalization...