Sorry for the offtopicness, but could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

The unholy trinity of upvotes/downvotes/karma creates some "echo chamberishness" (if I have to put it nicely) and pressure on posting as users tend to use the power to punish "wrongthink" instead of low effort posts. I think this behavior stems from that.

Having an option to relive the users of this pressure (like enabling a little anonymous posting, or adding distinctions between the downvote types) might incentivize them to drop this unwanted behavior.

100% agree. There is a very nonzero amount of "punishing wrongthink with downvotes" on HN. (Even if the post follows posting guidelines.)

As long as the community continues this kind of behavior, we'll have people spamming new accounts.

Usually there's something else wrong with a downvoted comment besides just "wrongthink". Since people don't like being downvoted, or seeing something they agree with being downvoted, they tend to reach for "wrongthink" a little too readily as the explanation.

Certainly there are unfairly downvoted comments, but users tend to give those corrective upvotes after a while: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

What are your thoughts on the meta-moderation system used by Slashdot? That seemed to curb a lot of common brigade abuse and is the one feature I miss most about other discussion systems.

Indeed I "correctively upvote" things that I otherwise wouldn't, but whenever I do so I'm frustrated by the rudimentary nature of pretty much all the moderation systems I've come across to date.

there's something about hn that i can't seem to remember my pw (also, tbi). whenever i'm on a new device, i register. sorry about that.

I strongly suspect that chronic pain directly reduces fitness by far more than it indirectly (through reminders) might increase it. However, as long as the effects are part of a highly conserved subsystem and also remain mild enough relative to the fraction of the population that experiences them, then there's a good chance they won't be meaningfully selected against.

Its intellectually hazardous to anthropomorphize chaos, like ascribing a purpose to evolution.

I thimk GP meant that pain concurrent with some experience makes the experience more memorable (ie, the brain helps you avoid future experiences by making previous experiences more readily memorable).

Yup. It always rubs me wrong when some says "Oh, the organism evolved to overcome that environmental factor".

It's more accurate to say "The environmental factor selected for a genetic variation that improved fitness."

I understand that's common nomenclature, but to me "selected" always feel like it implies intelligence in some manner. I've always preferred saying "the environmental factor caused evolution" in some manner or something similar.

For example, if feels more natural to me to say "an obstacle in my path may cause me to go around it", compared to "an obstacle in my path selected for me to go around it".

I think of evolution as a system than reacts to conditions, similar to a state machine. It's hard for me to think of those conditions as acting in some way on a system, but perhaps that's just a failure in my own thinking.

I probably didn't do a good job explaining it, but using your obstacle analogy...

When you say "an object in my path caused me to go around it", you're switching the cause and effect.

A more accurate way to say it would be "an obstacle on the path meant that only a handful of the population can go around it".

The change that allows you to go around the obstacle was not caused by the obstacle, it would have happened regardless. However, the change is only important if the obstacle is there - that's what drives evolution (selection).

> However, the change is only important if the obstacle is there - that's what drives evolution (selection).

I understand what's being said, it's the "selects" that triggers the problem for me.

I think of evolution as a system. Inputs cause the system to act in a certain way, but it's the system responding to the inputs, not the inputs choosing to get a specific output (which is what it sounds like to me to say A selects for B).

In the same way with orbital mechanics I wouldn't say a one object selected for a change in trajectory in the other. I would say one caused the change in the other, or more specifically, due to the how orbital mechanics work (the "system", the law of gravity), one object caused a change in the trajectory of the other.

So I guess my question is, why does evolution prefer the "selects" terminology? Is that common in any other sciences?

> why does evolution prefer the "selects" terminology? Is that common in any other sciences?

I think this is due to set theory and statistics. Terminology such as "select x such that" is standard. In fact a choice function is commonly referred to as a selector. Since evolution is essentially a biased random walk, you can describe it as a stochastic choice function (plus some other stuff) applied to the set of entities that makes up a population.

(If "selects" bothers you, what do you make of quantum mechanical "observers"? I witnessed that one cause lots of misconceptions among university and even a few graduate students.)

Thinking in terms of purpose helps understanding. Just gotta keep in mind that some things don't really have a purpose. They may have arisen randomly, be vestigial or be a side effect of something beneficial.