I don't think people have to be humble if they are proud of what they have produced and get recognition to validate them. I am much more concerned by her holding views that are in favor of hurting others.
no, just expressing outrage over the characters' values in a On the Road is. Judging some beat literature as if it had promised sober insight, ethical maturity, and durable philosophical yield is like taking a classic of rock music (e.g. Bohemian Rhapsody) and saying "this makes no fucking sense, its flamboyant garbage, no structural rigor whatsoever - go listen to beethoven."
if you read on the road thiking you're going to get carefully distilled philosophical and moral clarity, you're in the wrong Wendy's sir.
Where you see outrage, I see frustration from forcing oneself to read something everyone told you was a must-read
> carefully distilled philosophical and moral clarity
I wasn't looking for moral clarity, I was looking for something interesting to read about the world they live in, some insight
From the review posted above:
"But this is supposed to be okay, because they are visionaries. Their vision is to use the words “holy”, “ecstatic”, and “angelic” at least three times to describe every object between Toledo and Bakersfield. They don’t pass a barn, they pass a holy vision of a barn, a barn such as there must have been when the world was young, a barn whose angelic red and beatific white send them into mad ecstasies. They don’t almost hit a cow, they almost hit a holy primordial cow, the cow of all the earth, the cow whose dreamlike ecstatic mooing brings them to the brink of a rebirth such as no one has ever known."
OTR is "serving" beat literature. But that whole framing of art critique is problematic, it's a very "what do I get out of this?" instead of "what IS this, exactly?" I think what is abrasive about this review is that it's a voice of a picky consumer rather than someone who appreciates art. Like a demanding tourist in an italian village, snapping his fingers at the native waiters and complaining in english that his spaghetti is too aldente, because back at olive garden it's nice and soft. You get what you give, and this is not a generous review.
What I personally experienced is not very relevant, but I was moved by the book - whether it's positive or negative doesn't really matter - it's jazz.
Kind of is. The point of fiction is to speculate. Judging the characters is fine but the commenter above almost seems to take it personally that the characters are morally ambiguous people - but that's what fiction is meant to explore.
I have had my on the road phase when I was around 18 when I read the book but I did not vibe at all with it. I found all the characters highly unlikeable and couldn't help to think that I much better friends, even my wildest ones. But I wasn't wild enough I guess because I actually managed to finish the book, like a well behaved schoolboy.
If all the people who are uninformed and ignorant are on your side, I am sorry but it's your job to distantiate themselves from them and show what you actually care about is being integrated back into the scientific consensus (which is never perfect, terrible I know)
It seems that climate change denialists have failed to do that
I'm not sure you understood me. The people who are uninformed and ignorant and go to Wikipedia for their takes, get the right take on climate in my opinion.
But lots of uninformed and ignorant people don't go to Wikipedia for their takes on contentious topics, do they? It seems to me that the climate change denialists are capitalizing on that.
One of my mantras is: Bad people sometimes have good points. And it sucks when they do, because then they use that as leverage for all their bad points. Climate denialists have all bad points on climate, but "Wikipedia can't be trusted on contentious issues" is unfortunately not a bad point, because it's entirely true.
So your argument is basically "since it's not perfect, it shouldn't exist" aka Nirvana fallacy.
Concerning doing your own research, are you reading all research paper on all topics in the world? Or do you sometimes rely on an authority or scientific consensus, exactly as Wikipedia does?
I have never said Wikipedia shouldn't exist. I said you shouldn't trust Wikipedia on contentious issues.
If you had wanted suggestions for gradual improvement, I'd say wikipedia would be better with a "high stakes" template to a lot of pages, with blunt language about idiots fighting over defining the objective Wikipedia position on issues.
I find that the type of person who think themselves very smart for noting how objectivity is never absolute, microbiases experts if you will, will give a pass to most obvious propaganda when it goes in the direction of their contrarian beliefs. The argument seems to always be "Since it's not perfect we may as well do away with it".
> Basically I think it's good if people stop trusting Wikipedia on contentious topics.
What is the alternative ? Being born smart (i.e "not a sheep") ? Review the much less accessible corpus of academic literature on any subject ? Read a 300 to 1000 pages book ?
If half the people who boast being critically minded (but really just contrarian) did the actual work to engage with Wikipedia articles, the commentariat would be in much better shape.
The alternative, is to "do your own research" yes. No matter how much they sneer at it, no matter how many people who say they do it suck at it. You have to put in work if you want to be well-informed about anything.
There doesn't have to be an alternative to Wikipedia as a short-cut to being well informed on contentious topics, because there isn't a short cut, and the sooner people realize, the better.
You can still use Wikipedia for non-contentious topics, if you wish. I do, sometimes. I'm still not going to invest into it though - I'm way too disgusted at the Wikipedia sausage making process for that. That process is made for the contentious topics, it poisons the non-contentious topics, and it doesn't even work well for the contentious topics.
> From here, there are two rounds of sorting: gem quality and industrial grade. Most of mined diamonds never become jewellery. They go to cutting tools, drill bits, and grinding equipment.
For industrial use synthetic diamond is actually quite cheap now. The vast majority of industrial diamonds used today are synthetic and they've been affordable since the 1950s (?). Industrial-grade synthetic diamond grit or powder can cost as little as a few dollars per carat. This makes it far cheaper than mining natural diamonds for the same applications.
Diamond grit for polishing and grinding is now a cheap commodity. In 10,000 ct. lots, I pay from 5¢/ct. to 30¢/ct. depending on specific grit properties. I haven't searched for it, but diamond sandpaper should be a thing at these prices.
Unknown at present (nobody sells diamond sandpaper yet that I know of), but not likely. Diamond is as bioinert as gold, fluorocarbons, and similar materials in not provoking inflammatory responses when implanted in tissue.
Your point about unexpected behavior of dust is a good one. AFAIK, the worst dust hazards (aside from outright chemical or radiological toxicity) are from spiky, acicular particles like asbestos. Diamond dust is either well-formed small crystals or blocky fragments, depending on how it's made. It doesn't exist in needle-like forms that trigger pathological responses from otherwise nontoxic materials.
Diamond abrasives are definitely a thing. But for sandpaper, you rarely need anything more than the typical ceramic or silicon carbide abrasives. They pretty much are relegated specialized tooling for polishing, cutting, or abrading ceramics, concrete, tile, etc.
And yet if that was entirely the case, HN wouldn't be such an interesting place.
This sounds very much like someone making fun of the attempts of rationalism/effective altruism "because humans are not rational but emotional beings".
Yes, it is mostly true but not entirely true and that's what makes a difference.
I am certainly guilty of downvoting (not flag) people I disagree with but I also read the guidelines and will downvote or flag a comment that seems to originate from one of my ingroups that would violate those norms because I value this place.
And I have also been able to nuance my own opinions by reading a well-behaved (respecting HN norms) comment even though I don't like its vibe.
I didn't see the flag system being abused. The flagged comments I have seen were most egregious norm violations. Whereas posts are generally flagged when they inherently highly flammable. It's generally a edge case and some of those make it through with a little moderation warning as top comment.
From what I remember the bank started to federate around a payment network to outcompete the digital euro. I hope the digital euro wins, I hope they don't fumble it.
I think there's one big issue for massive electrification and insulation of buildings: renting.
As a renter, I have no incentives to invest thousands in my home's betterment because I will have lost those when I am gone. As an owner, I have no incentives to make my apartment/house better because I don't live in it and I don't pay the energy bills.
Something has to be done about that if we want to combat climate change. I know in France it is now forbidden to rent again or sale when the renter leaves if the home's energy grade is F or G (A is best) but it is probably loosely enforced/easy to circumvent. And it is too damn slow ! This is for regulation but maybe there are other levers ?
As a renter I would basically have to wait for energy prices to skyrocket for it to make economic sense. I hate this situation.
Another big problem is NIMBYism and ideological opposition to air conditioners.
Installing a heat pump can require (city) permits, permission from your landlord (if renting) or HOA/condo association (if you own a flat in a shared building) which can either be or feel impossible to get.
Some cities have either actually or de facto (through requirements/regulations that are impossible or unaffordable to meet) banned air conditioners, resulting in people buying inefficient monoblock units that can't be used for heating.
Edit: Other regulatory hurdles come from rules about refrigerant handling. Refrigerant must only be handled by experts who are certified in proper handling and recovery (and who, of course, are now in high demand and charging princely prices for their work). This made a lot of sense in the times where 1 kg of refrigerant had 10 tons CO2e in global warming potential, ozone depletion potential or other dangers.
Nowadays, a skilled layperson can probably set up an air conditioner with quick-connect couplings by themselves, but they aren't legally allowed to. These cost something like 500 EUR, contain less than 1 kg of R32 with a GWP of 675, so let's say 500 kg CO2e of harm if it leaks. If you passed a law that landlords cannot prohibit installation, and any electrician that passes a quick online training can install them, you could have them all over the place very quickly.
These could then be used for covering some or all of the heating load in winter, but they'd also alleviate suffering in summer, and that's luxury, and we can't have that (especially as it uses energy to provide the "needless" luxury!)
> As an owner, I have no incentives to make my apartment/house better because I don't live in it and I don't pay the energy bills.
In a rental market with more supply than demand, having more efficient / cheaper heating is an advantage to attract tenants - but this kind of market in residential housing is typically rare these days.
Which is why governments need to enforce this by regulation, e.g., in my country landlords are required to meet insulation / heating / ventilation standards that often end up with their rental housing being better insulated and heated than the homes that the landlords live in themselves.
If you own an older home and are renting it out, you'll often find that the heating capacity is too low for the modern standards, and in that case, a heat-pump is usually the most cost effective solution.
Well, there are heatpumps made to slot into a window frame (ex: https://www.mideacomfort.us/packaged.html ). The ones I'm familiar with are made for double hung windows, which are more common in the US, though. But might be worth a look?
reply