> It makes perfect sense- in the same way that your reflection in a mirror "demonstrates awareness of your presence."
The commander in the video did not describe it as being like a reflection. Why don't you watch his 6-minute testimony and then offer an informed opinion?
> flight computers tracking the glitch would plausibly show it "performing maneuvers" that make no sense for physical objects, such as the ones you describe.
This is an example of "coming up with less-extraordinary theories that contradict the evidence," as gfodor said[1], because you have asserted "glitches" in "flight computers" and ignored the pilots' eyeballs, which corroborated the radar contacts that had been observed over several days.
I haven't been banned from HN before, but I'm not surprised that some of my comments resemble ones from those you have banned.
Help me understand, please: what about that comment makes it a flamewar comment? I was attempting to engage him in serious discussion, and he offered voluminous nonsense in return. Is it verboten to point that out? Where did I cross your line?
By the way, I recently exchanged a few comments with you about HN's political bias, and you asked for examples. This submission's comments, and the flagging of my comment, is a good example of what I was talking about. There is a clear bias in that comments espousing a certain view are downvoted and flagged, even without violating the guidelines.
It seems clear that you quickly respond to comments which are flagged, even those flagged by the person being responded to. If I may ask, since I haven't seen this question asked or answered before: do you also police downvotes and flags? i.e. when people downvote, kill, and flag comments that do not deserve to be, do you correct it?
It doesn't appear so to me, and that creates an additional avenue for bias to be expressed: since only users with certain karma scores can vouch for wrongly flagged comments, it's easy for users with high scores to wrongly flag comments from users whose scores do not allow them to protest.
> Look, I love the idea of aliens, but try to apply Occam's Razor here. What's less complicated?
I said nothing about aliens--you did. In fact, the only interpretation I offered was that the object appeared to demonstrate awareness of the aircraft sent to intercept it. Everything else I wrote was simply reporting the observations of the pilots and naval radar.
> An uncommon, but natural phenomenon in which a ball of plasma (or similar) is temporarily attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft.
Did you watch the video I linked? Your explanation bears no resemblance to the phenomenon observed by the Navy: Radar contacts were observed over several days demonstrating bizarre yet consistent behavior. When an aircraft was sent to intercept, the pilot made visual contact with two objects, one beneath the ocean surface and one maneuvering erratically 20,000 feet in the air. The airborne object began mirroring the pilot's movements and then retreated when the pilot flew at it. Radar contact with the object was then established 60 miles away at the position the pilot was returning to, as if the object was anticipating the pilot's intended movement.
In no way does the reported phenomenon bear any resemblance to "a ball of plasma attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft."
> An advanced, spacefaring race (or races) travel to Earth and spend over 70 years pulling pranks on military pilots.
I have not speculated on the provenance of the phenomenon--you have.
> Again, I'm no physicist, but consider something like walking through a cloud of flying dandelion seeds. The air currents created by the person walking through the cloud create little vortices that tend to pull the seeds in their "wake" toward them. That doesn't mean the dandelion seeds are "aware" of the person they're being pulled toward.
The charitable interpretation of your comments is that you haven't watched the video and listened to the commander's testimony--and why not? Alternatively, you have, but you're still posting these interpretations that bear no relation to the reported observations--and why would you do that?
1. What do you make of the many reputable, accomplished scientists, physicists, etc. who do not believe that it is soundly supported by basic science?
2. What do you make of the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown on the IPCC scientists' political bias and resigned in protest?
3. What do you make of Cook, et al's fraudulent "97% consensus" paper?
You then replied with 1,100 words that do not answer any of the three questions I asked. Instead you offered generic, verbose opinion about science and scientists and politics.
I don't know who you are trying to convince, but if it's me, you didn't, because you did not answer my serious, specific questions.
Science is advanced by specific answers to specific questions. If you are as serious about this issue as you ostensibly are, you ought to have specific answers for these specific questions.
If you don't have them, and if you won't get them, then do us both a favor and just admit that you don't know the answers and aren't willing to find them. It is rude to offer verbose bullshit to someone attempting to engage you in serious discussion.
That makes no sense. Testimony from the pilots who intercepted the object indicates the object demonstrated awareness of their presence.
Watch this video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 squadron commander (not an average military pilot) who intercepted one of the objects and engaged in aerial maneuvers with it. He describes intercepting the object, flying about one mile away from it, with the object demonstrating awareness of his presence by mirroring his maneuvers. Then he flew aggressively at it, and the object responded by rapidly flying away. It then showed up on radar at the position he was returning to, where he had been flying a combat air patrol before he was sent to intercept the object, indicating that the object had been aware of his aircraft all along.
The commander also said that the flying object appeared to be maneuvering about 20,000 feet over an unknown object which was submerged just beneath the ocean surface.
Other testimony recounted at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27666/what-the-hell-is... mentions that the ships had been tracking these objects on radar for a few days already, with them appearing suddenly on radar at 80,000 feet, rapidly descending vertically to 20,000 feet, and then flying straight up again, disappearing past 80,000 feet. The ships went to non-drill battle stations while the aircraft intercepted the object.
That makes no sense. Testimony from the pilots who intercepted the object indicates the object demonstrated awareness of their presence.
Watch this video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 squadron commander (not an average military pilot) who intercepted one of the objects and engaged in aerial maneuvers with it. He describes intercepting the object, flying about one mile away from it, with the object demonstrating awareness of his presence by mirroring his maneuvers. Then he flew aggressively at it, and the object responded by rapidly flying away. It then showed up on radar at the position he was returning to, where he had been flying a combat air patrol before he was sent to intercept the object, indicating that the object had been aware of his aircraft all along.
The commander also said that the flying object appeared to be maneuvering about 20,000 feet over an unknown object which was submerged just beneath the ocean surface.
Other testimony recounted at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27666/what-the-hell-is... mentions that the ships had been tracking these objects on radar for a few days already, with them appearing suddenly on radar at 80,000 feet, rapidly descending vertically to 20,000 feet, and then flying straight up again, disappearing past 80,000 feet. The ships went to non-drill battle stations while the aircraft intercepted the object.
> Or are you trying to reveal some sort of hidden value judgment or bias or something related to the politics of global warming?
Mainly that, although you aren't the person I posed the question to, and it may not apply to you. Assuming you're being sincere, it doesn't appear to.
Since we've come this far, if I may continue asking you:
Since you seem to sincerely believe that AGW theory is soundly supported by basic science, what do you make of the many reputable, accomplished scientists, physicists, etc. who do not believe that it is soundly supported by basic science?
What do you make of the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown on the IPCC scientists' political bias and resigned in protest?
What do you make of Cook, et al's fraudulent "97% consensus" paper?
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is, if these organizations made such an announcement, and assuming that they were correct, what would you think? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?
If, tomorrow, NASA, NOAA, and the UN IPCC held a joint press conference to announce surprising new evidence which indicated that anthropogenic effects on the climate were minimal, that we could not noticeably affect the climate, regardless of our emissions, and that the climate was essentially out of our control, what would your reaction be? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?
> For one thing, "rising sea levels" is often used as a symbol, representing all the varied consequences of global warming, the most depressing of which may be global ecological turmoil, so you might consider taking it less literally.
Fascinating. It's good to see someone like you admit the lying.
Or maybe you slipped and let your guard down. This is probably a relatively safe place to do so. Average people don't read HN, so they'll never find out.
The problem with lying is that there are only two explanations: either your claims can't withstand honest scrutiny, or everyone's too stupid to understand the truth, so you have to fool them. History is littered with atrocities committed by those who believed the latter.
He's trying to tell you, in an indirect, humorous way, that the name of your product, when spoken in English and pronounced a certain way, sounds like something other than the name of the planet and mythological god.
His comment has been downvoted according to HN's sense of humor, or lack thereof.
I appreciate your response. I don't expect you'll see this reply, since it's so old, but just in case:
> Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor?
Generally, yes, of course.
> Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by that, but I'd like to point out a way to interpret it: If HN is left-leaning, and left-leaning people do not think HN is biased, then only right-leaning people would think HN is biased, and one could predict political orientation based on whether a person thinks HN is biased.
In other words, if left-leaning people think their position is neutral (e.g. because they're irreligious, and they think that religion is biased and that secularism is unbiased), and HN is left-leaning, then left-leaning people would think HN is unbiased, and right-leaning people would think it is biased.
Now I'm guessing you meant that both left- and right-leaning people think HN is biased against their political orientation.
But I challenge you (not that you haven't done this, but still) to look at submissions on polarizing issues (e.g. global warming, sexism, racism), look at the comments that are downvoted and flagged, and look at which viewpoints those comments espouse. Modulo comments that are flagged or downvoted for obvious guidelines violations, my claim is that the vast majority are ones that are right-leaning. I don't think confirmation bias is causing me to think this--I think it's a fair observation.
And if that observation is correct, then I think it's fair to conclude that HN is biased to the left.
> We can see by your sequence of comments that you're not in good faith.
Whose sequence of comments? Each reply to izzydata in this thread has been by a different person. Are you accusing all of them of arguing in bad faith? I thought we were supposed to assume good faith here.
> I believe that you understand exactly what is being discussed here but you are trying to derail the conversation.
It seems to me that its izzydata's arguments that are false dichotomies and strawmen.
> 'Passing on "knowledge"' in a religious setting means indoctrinating children from a very young age, very literally since they become sentient beings.
Everything a parent teaches a child is "indoctrinating" them from a young age. You use the word "indoctrinating" in a pejorative way because you dislike religious people.
> You say something to the effect of "here is a set of things that are true: I'm daddy, she's mommy, the sky is blue, and Jesus is god."
So which of those 4 things are false? To you, obviously, the last. But to these hypothetical parents, that last item is true. Who are you, then, to tell these parents how to raise their children? Would you let them tell you how to raise yours?
You would have them teach, "I'm daddy, she's mommy, the sky is blue, and Jesus is not real." By your own logic, you would then be just as guilty of indoctrination as these hypothetical Christian parents.
Or perhaps you would have them teach, "I'm daddy/mommy, that's your other daddy/mommy, the sky is blue in some cultures, and Jesus was a guy that some people think existed, but you'll have to make up your own mind when you're older." And you would then have a very confused child on your hands. Are you actually a parent?
> You present your faith as a dogmatic view that will become entrenched and an integral part of his/her identity.
Everything a parent teaches a child becomes part of them. Few people think critically enough to overcome the ideas they were raised with. So what? Therefore, parents should teach children nothing? Answer their questions with, "You'll figure it out someday on your own. I don't want to prejudice you at this young age"?
That would be silly. Every parent teaches their children what they believe is true. People have different beliefs, so children are taught different things. So what? Are you saying you know better than everyone else, so parents should teach their children what you think the truth is?
> As something that is above questioning. I find this deeply wrong from an ethical point of view,
You're the one who says that it's "above questioning." You have invented an image of these hypothetical parents in your mind.
> but also very harmful from a practical point of view, as you're teaching them some very twisted things (obey without question or you will be punished; accept things from figures of authority without evidence; etc.).
What do you think a small child should be taught? "Don't obey your parents without question. Do what feels right to you. Believe no claim without scientific proof." Followed by, "No, don't stick your finger in that power outlet! Because it will kill you! No, I'm not going to gather evidence of that for you! I'm your parent, so do what I say!" bzzzt
It doesn't sound like you've actually raised children.
Those release notes are some of the best written I've ever seen. Clear, concise, comprehensive. Gives a lot of confidence in the project going forward. Nice work.
I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning.
A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views.
Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones.
At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000.
This is plain to any observer who's been here a while.
So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning.
If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.
The commander in the video did not describe it as being like a reflection. Why don't you watch his 6-minute testimony and then offer an informed opinion?
> flight computers tracking the glitch would plausibly show it "performing maneuvers" that make no sense for physical objects, such as the ones you describe.
This is an example of "coming up with less-extraordinary theories that contradict the evidence," as gfodor said[1], because you have asserted "glitches" in "flight computers" and ignored the pilots' eyeballs, which corroborated the radar contacts that had been observed over several days.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20072598