> In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know.
Incorrect. Do take your own advice.
> As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.
If you don't know what qualifies as a cult, and you cannot think at a systems level to compare one cult vs. another (e.g., Army vs. Navy vs. Marines), that's for you to own in terms of your shortcomings. Not mine.
In terms of "winning the war", that is your cult programming shining through. Still to this day. What's the goal? "win the war" + < Hoorah Vs. Oorah Vs. Hooah Vs. Hooyah > (you know, because cults have their own signaling mechanism).
Cult strategies are useful in homogeneity and group cohesion; you want hyper-in-group associations in part because it ensures you are alive and the enemy is un-alive.
Have you really not reflected on your time, as a human alive on earth, ever? Is it because no one told you to reflect on your time as a human on earth? (You know, because you are programmed to wait for others to tell you what to do and what is important vs. unimportant before actually doing it)
Startling, to be honest.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.
Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models.
> We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for.
I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, which is of questionable moderation. Not just on this comment thread but many others. I don't see these warnings anywhere. Again, this points to subjectivity. I searched for subjectivity in moderation on the link you provided and it returned no results.
Please can you also share the algorithms used in moderation for HN?
Thanks very much!
If you'll review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html with a sincere intent to use this site as intended, it should be easy to see how you weren't doing that.
Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). That's a universal bias, same as it always feels like the cops are singling you out for a speeding ticket when lots of other cars were going fast too.
If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at [email protected]. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Got it. Maybe I will give it a shot and share it. I'm not sure which types of bots you're already using but there's ways to orchestrate consensus networks on opinion dynamics to derive a "threat" level (or whatever metric name you want to call it). And that could be used to do things like auto-cut tickets to inspect threads for guideline violations.
IMO, there was a misunderstanding about the term "you": there is an individual "you" and a collective "you".
> Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves
I don't feel like I'm being singled out, more like I feel like there is inconsistency in moderation. Probably because it's hard and there are limited resources and the bots that you do have have thresholds set super judiciously to avoid false-positive flagging (or not; I don't actually know).
At the same time, if "you" can be misinterpreted as a personal attack, it likely will be - so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
Moderation here is always going to be inconsistent, simply because we don't see everything that gets posted, or even 10% of it - there's far too much. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at [email protected].
> In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims.
It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience".
Unless someone here was with you, they don't know (nor do I) what your personal experience was. Similarly, you don't know everyone else's personal experiences. OTOH, we have these wonderful social sciences which go around and collect data from lots and lots of individuals, draw conclusions and publish them for other people to read and learn.
The data and conclusions might not be representative of your experience, but it's rubbish for you to handwave it away for your individual, subjective experience.
It's not ironic at all. Leadership itself is something that can't be studied purely from the outside.
> we have these wonderful social sciences
I don't share your rosy view of these so-called sciences. But that's not something we're going to resolve here.
Really? What other use cases are there for a military?
> It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like.
In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know.
As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.