You just realized pledging claims on paper with multiple degrees of seperation (stocks) for anything with a trigger mechanism, and then banking on it… is a terrible idea?

“ If this person is bad at their job for whatever reason (incompetence/malice) it can cause a lot of problems. It is very hard to prove a person like this wrong when they are covering their arse after making a mistake.”

This seems guaranteed to occur every year then… since incompetence/malice will happen eventually with thousands upon thousands of cases?

> This seems guaranteed to occur every year then…

Not at all. This job will go to an "AI" any moment now.

/i

Well wasnt that a good thing?

After the extermination of Melos they could credibly say they were less responsible for the actions of the polis.

And had a higher chance of deflecting the inevitable revenge on to the non idiotes Athenians.

If one civilization is taking revenge on another I don’t think they would show that much nuance.

For one thing, wouldn’t everyone claim they were against their old polis? How would the invaders have any idea who was an idiote?

I just don’t believe it’s at all easy to avoid the fate of your nation , and I especially doubt that the politically ignorant have a better chance of avoiding that fate than the well informed.

I did say higher chance, not guaranteed to avoid it.

The counter extermination was only 5% of Athens total population, or so historians say, so it seems like a lot of nuance was shown.

> The counter extermination was only 5% of Athens total population, or so historians say, so it seems like a lot of nuance was shown.

That fact alone doesn't demonstrate nuance. It's possible that 5% of the population was innocent and treated as scapegoats, or chosen randomly, or that anyone high profile regardless of guilt was chosen to die.

Unless there's data on who was actually innocent or guilty, the mere fact that extermination was selective doesn't mean it was in any way accurate.

And your point…?

Of course nobody can prove either way beyond a reasonable doubt for something that happened so long ago.

Funny seeing people pushing for other people becoming more active in politics with the assumption that “being more involved” means with their political fights, then get worried when the other side grows or intensifies.

The fact that it’s possible at all to inject plausible doubt, for even a few weeks, means that counterparties will be much more wary.

They will simply have less goodwill when an American team is on the other side of the table, and give less benefit of the doubt. (as compared to say if a Swiss team is on the other side of the table)

If you werent willing to pay for an SLA, and they clearly werent going to offer one to you… why is it surprising if literally no promises were made in writing?

Why would they intentionally lose money on your private commercial activity without even that?

> werent willing to pay for an SLA

According to who?

> no promises were made in writing

Most big businesses won't promise anything. That doesn't make their actions reasonable.

> Why would they intentionally lose money

You made this up.

Also if they were losing money on some feature, they could change the quota for just that feature.

Are you confused?

Clearly I was not asking for random role play on how another HN user may answer a direct question.

I'm calling out your "questions" as containing a bunch of unsupported claims about the situation on top of weird assumptions about how things have to work. It was not an answer, and your questions as written don't deserve answers.

How can your opinion even outweigh anyone else’s in the first place?

From what I can see there is no possible way your opinions could have some extra weight, above and beyond the median HN user.

(And in either case, you still seem confused for trying to initially hide behind some weird pretense reply)

> opinion

It's not an opinion-based claim. Maybe I missed something that would make me incorrect, but whether you made up details that make OP look bad is a factual matter. It's true or it isn't.

Also I said nothing about my opinion "outweighing" anyone else. Where did you get that from?

> hide behind some weird pretense

I'm sorry if it came off that way. I wasn't going for any weird pretense, and don't think most people would read the comment that way.

> It's not an opinion-based claim.

This sentence is literally an opinion.

Take your nonsense elsewhere, it’s totally derailling the thread.

> This sentence is literally an opinion.

I could disagree but it doesn't matter. I said a particular thing was not an opinion. You pointing at something else I said and calling it an opinion doesn't affect my claims at all.

What matters is my claim that you made up stuff about _drg9's situation. That claim is objectively true or false, not an opinion. And the evidence I see all says the claim is true.

> Take your nonsense elsewhere, it’s totally derailling the thread.

Derailing what? Nobody else has posted in this part of the comments in days.

This just seems like trolling now.

I cant think of anyone who cares if you classify your own opinions differently. 100% of your comments still are.

If you mean that more generally, that all comments are opinions, then you don't know what the word opinion means.

If you mean just me in this conversation, some of my sentences are opinions and some aren't.

If it’s known some kind of decision making, so to speak, was happening via electrical signals in the spinal cord… why is it suprising that it happens in other types of cells too?

Neurons can do more operations than normal cells.

If I can make a bad approximation:

* Making circuits with normal cells is like making circuits with resistors and capacitors.

* Making circuits with neurons is like adding transistors to the mix.

(Please don't take this analogy too seriously, probably biologist and electricians are writing angry replies now.)

you are making sense with it, here read this:

Electrically Excitable Cells

https://neurotext.library.stonybrook.edu/C4/C4_1/C4_1.html

So they have no durable principles for deciding who or what to refund… doesnt that make them look even worse…?

Or they do, and two sentences from two different experiences don't tell a full story?

Okay “they do” based on what more compelling evidence?

Its not like the credibility of the two prior HN users are literally zero…

I am saying there is no evidence either way: they had contrasting experiences and one GP established this means that company has no standardized policies. Maybe they do, maybe they don't — I don't think we can definitively conclude anything.

So if you acknowledge the prior claims have more than literally zero credibility… then what’s the issue?

That I dont equally weigh them with all possible yet-to-be claimed things?

I object to your conclusion that "they have no durable principles": not sure how do you get to that from two different experiences documented with a single paragraph.

Because I can assess things via probability… without needing 100% certain proof either way?

This is becoming futile: this is not even about proof, but there not even being a full account of two cases you are basing your opinion on.

Obviously, you can derive any opinion you want out of that, but while I am used to terms like "probability" being misused like this, I've generally seen a higher standard at HN.

To each their own, though. Thank you for the discourse and have a good day.

Until you get to things like Vimes Theory of Boots. Not all consumption is equal. Not all consumption can be reduced. A burger wrapper might not care about economic status, the bag of beans and rice might.

How is reducibility relevant?

Do you think the burger wrapper just automatically winks out of existence for poor people?

Again, what has that got to do with the "fairness" aspect of taxing consumption?

There are no “fairness” molecules so it clearly cannot be relevant for the physical generation of negative externalities.

How exactly that load is divvied up by society, where it would apply, is not something I know the answer to.

Actual formal engineering jobs in Switzerland come with benefits gold plating better than full federal government employees in the USA. And they’re almost as hard to sack.

Nobody gives out positions like that easily to non geniuses. And even for more ordinary very smart candidates, there are enough of them to have a few hoops to jump through.

Isn’t that presumably the point of the Vietnamese government whenever they set new requirements?

To make it harder for people who dont care about Vietnam to do business.