The messaging of this article is causing people in this very comment section to conclude that climate change is progressing slower (or even not progressing at all) based on a revision of a plant CO2 uptake study that was done in the 1980s.
Like it or not climate science is extremely political and selectively reported science (which this is) that is presented to the public needs to account for the context in which it exists or it is no better than propaganda. The fact that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is primarily funded by the US Department of Energy is plenty of reason to be suspicious of its motivations. They have a vested interest in shaping the public's perception of energy production and its impact on the climate.
Yes, this specific messaging feels motivated by the bottom lines of energy producers. The information doesn't actually change what we've measured regarding progress of climate change, but it's vague enough that plenty of people in the comments here are confused and acting like climate change isn't real after all.
What are the "aesthetics of gambling"? Do all games involving dice rolls resemble that aesthetic? If gambling aesthetics change to resemble popular game aesthetics, does that expand the list of games you'll ban?
I really believe that you are approaching this in good faith, so I will do the same. I don't have time to really dig into this deeply with you so these brief justifications of my stance will have to suffice. I don't understand some of your tangents, and you will have to forgive me for not addressing the reddit or sports stuff.
> Re: tech bro
The tech bro thing comes across most apparently in the pro-VC slant of this site (inextricable, I know). There is a high proportion of believers in a fantasy meritocracy where current wealth concentration is justifiable due to the sheer genius of "founders". This is very much a tech-bro way of thinking.
The way HN regularly reduces socio-political problems into a technological gap is another tech-bro "thing". When someone suggests that a country switch its currency to crypto to eliminate state corruption, or suggests that biometrics scanners be installed at ports of entry to eliminate slavery and humans rights abuses, that is a tech-bro opinion. It is different from a blue collar environment because the people on this website are extremely insulated from the social issues that come up on here. Nonetheless, they feel like they have an obvious solution to a version of the problem that they've concocted in their head based on a 2 second glance at a headline. It reminds me of this Adam Savage video that I think is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP4CKn86qGY
> Re: obnoxiously male
This is exemplified by the high confidence and combativeness in this and other similar comment sections on HN, but let's just talk about this comment section.
Commenters here are confidently asserting that the author's lived experience is wrong because of a certain interpretation of the words that they typed in the article. When she says that someone made comments that made her feel othered, the reaction here is to disbelieve and downplay. That is very much a "obnoxiously male" way of approaching things. In more balanced spaces, the presumption would be that this blog post was made for a reason and that the person who made it is valid and rational by default. Nobody here has any additional information, and they are asserting that their interpretation of her words is correct even though they are heavily influenced by their own biases of gender, class, and otherwise.
The politics of the situation might make a perceived lack of technological solution a convenient scapegoat, that is true. However, from the HN comments section, suggesting a technological solution to a human rights abuse problem doesn't move the needle, because it is not a lack of technology that has caused the human rights abuse. You are responding to a non-issue that hasn't been presented to you and that you have no authority to solve.
I don't see it as materially different. I also don't consider this to be an example of either of them being genius visionaries. I actually think it's an extremely straightforward tactic to cannibalize part of your business to break into another bigger market.
Apple didn't stop selling iPods, you know? I don't really get why it was more risky for Apple to market the iPhone than for Facebook to decide not to shut down Instagram once they acquired it.
The differences in the literal creation of the entity are immaterial to my point.
Me, I guess. I've released MacOS apps for free and never felt any expectation to provide indefinite support. They do what they are supposed to do and people still use them.