> I don't really have the time to be competitively good at any of these games, and the community kinda sucks unless you are competitively good so it's kinda like what's the point?
You could play with people on your own level?
> At least with rec sports the community is generally nice even if you're terrible (probably because you're in-person).
Really? Try playing pick-up basketball games if you are terrible. Even with rec sports, people play at their own level.
> Anyway, my point being that I wouldn't be shocked to learn that women (and likely people of color) feel the same way - once you're not really part of that core group of young white men
Young white men? Why are you being racist and sexist by targeting one group?
People don't play online games or recreational sports for "community". Seems like you are lonely and trying to make friends in the wrong places.
I play sports because it's fun and good exercise. I play video games because it's fun and mentally challenging. I don't play sports or video games for community.
> competitive games start feeling really unappealing unless you're just really into the game itself.
Then don't play it. Go play something else? Why are you complaining about it?
Maybe women on average don't like competitive games for the same reason women don't like other competitive sports like basketball, baseball, etc? Maybe, men and women are on average different and have different interests. Maybe that's why advertisers go about targeting men and women different? Maybe that's why movies, music, etc are differently geared towards men and women?
Or, maybe you could push your racist and sexist rhetoric and blame young white men?
> China is aware of this and they control any maps their citizens will ever see.
Everyone is aware of it. Maps have always been political. Maps and borders are political creations. Why is it that whenever a controversial topic comes up, people always bring up china? Every HN thread that has a controversial topic, someone always sneaks in a reference to china?
> "Of course all that ocean between Philippines and Vietnam belongs to China!" is what most Chinese citizens will assume, after all, they saw it on their maps growing up. While the rest of us will have seen a different map.
You act like there are two maps. One china is pushing and another everyone else agrees to. China, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and every nation in ASEAN have their own maps.
The issue with maps has always existed. Whether it is current - crimea (russia/ukraine), sea of japan/east sea ( japan/korea ) or historical - hawaiians/inuit/nativesc vs european colonizers. Or the remnants of colonization like india/pakistan or artificial nations created by european colonizers in africa and the middle east which has created ethnic border issues.
Pretty much every nation today has map issues. Even within a nation there are map issues ( like the renaming of mount denali ).
It's not just borders. When you produce a map for the China market, you need to make certain islands prominent, and physically larger than they actually are, because South China Sea Politics. I can't find a link to cite, but this is well known among people in the mapping business.
Even their GPS coordinate system is different than the rest of the world. Most of the world has settled on WGS-84, but when you display GPS points on a map of China, you need to convert them to their own somewhat randomly-obfuscated coordinate system [1], and display all map data in that datum as well.
Because of these kind of special-snowflake rules, when you're making any kind of geographic software, you usually have to make two versions: One for China and one for everyone else. Not unlike dealing with the USA's insistence on using imperial measurement systems while most of the rest of the world has standardized on metric.
As an amusing aside, and whilst not wishing to introduce flammable politics into this discussion, there's a funny thing that goes on whenever the topic of the Scottish Independence debate arises in the media or on social media. It usually concerns the Scottish border between Scotland and England and usually heads along the lines of "rebuilding Hadrian's Wall" to keep us pesky Scots out of the rUK (or whatever the reason de-jour is) and is often repeated by unionists (and journalists) far south of the border who've likely never set foot in Scotland.
Little do they realise (or they do and are playing along with the usual lazy stereotypes and tropes about Scotland) that Hadrian's Wall doesn't track along the Scottish border and is in fact up to 70 miles south of the border (at the eastern end). So they unwittingly in their minds donated a decent chunk of the north east of England to Scotland come independence day. Well, thank you :)
So yes, people's ideas about maps and where borders lie are issues everywhere, not just in China.
> Little do they realise (or they do and are playing along with the usual lazy stereotypes and tropes about Scotland)
Why is it either of those? I think you're willfully taking "rebuild Hadrian's Wall" to have an extremely literal meaning that isn't intended by anyone saying it. Clearly they mean "build a wall between Scotland and rUK", not "follow the exact line of a 2000-year-old wall".
Trust me, if you've followed the Scottish Independence debate at all, there really are people who should know better that do actually think this way. They really do think Hadrian's Wall is the Scottish border.
Because China's often top of mind due to being in the news. Also, because China does many things (some good, many horrible) that suit them and not the West or Western principles. I'm curious to see why this bothers you and I hope you avoid falling into the "whattaboutism" trap.
Regarding parent comment: China's aggressive military base push in SCS and other waters is very worrying.
I encountered a gentleman on G+ who argued most stridently that "the British Isles" was an absolutely unacceptible term for the large archipelago lying to the northeast of mainland Europe.
He is, it happens, Irish.
(His view is also poorly supported, and worse argued.)
China is NOT merely acting like anyone else in regards to international territories.
China very aggressively uses every social, political and military means to change the maps in their favor and extend their political control. This ranges from building military bases by expanding islands in international waters and putting air bases on it and threatening others, to denying that they invaded Tibet, to getting foreigners fired for liking a tweet that might hint that Taiwan is independent.
The US regularly needs to put naval vessels & aircraft in harm's way to frequently reassert Freedom Of Navigation in international waters -- the potential harm is from China's false assertion that these are Chinese territorial waters. This needs to be done ONLY against China in this region -- no other players try to pull the same nonsense.
Please stop trying to act as if China is not an outlier in this regard. Their egregious and even bellicose behavior needs to be called out and halted before it gets more violent. This only serves to normalize and encourage China's egregious behavior.
Please don't take HN discussions into nationalistic flamewar. As the guidelines say, "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
(They also ask you not to use allcaps for emphasis, since that's basically yelling.)
And like clockwork, China isn't even singled out, isn't mentioned first, but instantly it's pointed out how there's really nothing particularly bad going on there, for over half a century. Even bending so far to pretend this is a "controversial subject", and as if most controversial subjects didn't mention China at all. The latter is an easily demonstrable falsehood, uttered in the interest of discussion hygiene. You can't make that shit up -- but I'm sure someone could crawl and visualize it one day. Though I guess one could simply read archives from the 1930s and get the same in more better language.
Other nations may have map issues, but China, in addition to concentration camps, really has map issues.
> As for the Marriott employee who “liked” the Twitter post by Friends of Tibet, Smith said disciplinary proceedings had been started. “Due to the mistake of an individual employee, our official [Twitter] account wrongly ‘liked’ the tweet supporting Tibet independence and misled the public. [We] have now suspended this employee and dismissal proceedings are under way,” he was quoted as saying.
Well, except that's not what happened. I couldn't find the one that was originally posted on HN, that article was much better, but this one has the tweet in question:
He didn't make an "error" even. He liked a positive tweet that thanked them for something he didn't understand and had no instructions about. Off with his head, and everybody do the pre-emptive obedience dance, go! When something like this walks the planet, when something like this feeds, then it's not the worst idea to mention it or things related in spirit to it at every occasion, especially whenever you meet new people or new crowds, as a litmus test.
Just like you might have a dinner party in the early 1930s and, then you mention Nazi violence, and a guest mentions that people have just different ideas about how to best go about internal politics. You smile, thank them for their comment, and never invite them again. You don't "leave politics out" when concerned with serious things, unless you're either putting all your stakes on the Nazis winning and erasing all records, like they would have done in Eastern Europe had they not lost the war, or simply aren't thinking that far. As I said, many historical archives are testament to that kinda being the norm, but culture of the present and last half century, uncountable movies and speeches, kind of seem to suggest it's not the norm we end up thinking fondly of in hindsight. They're not the people we wish we had the courage to be. They're the ones we're ashamed of and euphemize, instead of just mentioning their name and some kind of glow filling our hearts. Oh well.
Certainly a lot of short sellers ( and bulls ) spreading rumors online, but this seems more like the continuation of the war between elon musk and journalists.
There have been a surprising number of hit pieces by a number of news companies against musk and his companies lately. I think I've seen more negative news articles concerning elon musk in the past 4 months than the 4 years before that.
There seems to be a pattern that whenever someone challenges journalists or their industry, they gang up and pile on.
I think it's going to be an interesting couple of months for elon musk as I think these journalists are just getting warmed up with their anti-musk hit pieces.
Elon is attempting to maneuver Tesla through a tight operating and financial envelope. He is doing so with public funding. Of course you're going to have a lot of debate about what he's doing. Journalists being critical isn't them launching a war, it's them attempting to leave no stone unturned.
> Elon is attempting to maneuver Tesla through a tight operating and financial envelope.
He's been attempting that maneuver for more than a decade.
> He is doing so with public funding.
You mean private funding? Raising money on the stock market isn't public funding.
> Of course you're going to have a lot of debate about what he's doing.
That's my point. He's been doing everything you've said forever. It's just the past 4 months where journalists have started to write hit pieces. How come they were so quiet in the past?
> Journalists being critical isn't them launching a war, it's them attempting to leave no stone unturned.
No. Considering some journalists have openly asked their fellow journalists on twitter to come forward with sex abuse or negative stories on elon musk after musk criticized the media, I don't think your argument holds much water.
It's obvious musk despises the news media ( he openly stated so ). And it's obvious journalists hate criticism and will lash out at anyone. The question is whether vindictiveness on both sides will subside. I highly doubt it will from journalists considering their terrible track record and of course their desire for ratings. So I expect a lot of hit pieces on musk and tesla. The question is will elon musk back down. My hope is that he will focus on his companies and his goals rather than being dragged into a neverending petty argument with journalists.
>Journalists being critical isn't them launching a war, it's them attempting to leave no stone unturned.
When you only do your job some of the time, it's reasonable to question your motivation. We've had years of Tesla and Musk puff-pieces and it's only in the last few months that journalists have decided to leave no stone unturned en masse.
> we've had years of Tesla and Musk puff-pieces and it's only in the last few months that journalists have decided to leave no stone unturned en masse
You're complaining about the disease and then complaining about the cure. When Tesla was flush with cash and the recovery was young, the operating and financial envelope was wide. Tesla had the room (i.e. capital and investors' patience) to screw up.
Elon has said he won't raise more capital. He has more investors than before. Many of them have been holding for years. In that midst, he has announced ambitious (i.e. expensive) schedules. That combination creates a precarious envelope. Combine that with being later in the economic cycle, and heightened attention is warranted.
> You're complaining about the disease and then complaining about the cure
In the ebbs and flows of positivity/negativity frequency, all flows look like cures for ebbs. Really, it's just the another symptom of the same disease that there are intentionally large peaks and valleys at all (unintentional is a different matter of course).
>You're complaining about the disease and then complaining about the cure.
I'm not, I'm saying when someone treats you badly for ten years then suddenly changes their attitude, it's reasonable to wonder what motivated the change.
Tesla stopped being flush with cash and the recovery stopped being young years ago. He's announced ambitious production schedules (and missed them) multiple times. The 'we won't need more capital' thing? He first said that in 2011. Since then he's come back to raise money several times.
The real difference I see this time is a perceived closeness with Trump and general misbehavior on twitter.
Hmm, seem to have struck a chord here. Anyone want to actually say what you disagree with so strongly?
> The real difference I see this time is a perceived closeness with Trump and general misbehavior on twitter
Financial markets aren't known to be sensitive to leaders' political proclivities. Yet the bonds are down and stock's volatility up.
Could part of the negative coverage be motivated by Elon's personality and politics? Sure. But the risk profile of the company changed with the SolarCity acquisition and Model 3 announcement in 2016, bond issuance in 2017 and CAPEX and production delays in 2018. One representation of this risk profile is runway, i.e. TTM operating burn + CAPEX / Cash on hand. It is compressed. That concerns existing investors, excites bankers (who might get a stock or bond offering out of it) and entices new investors. Increased attention + narrow envelope leads to concerned/cautious/negative coverage.
(It is also difficult to disentangle the increased `general volatility in the markets post-tariffs from Tesla's inherent volatility, which is also linked to the tariff discussion.)
It's interesting that there's been a massive delay between risk profile change in 2016 and 2017 and the recent drop - a drop that it appears may be temporary. I know a lot of people that have been shorting Tesla for years and have been continuously surprised by its seemingly irrational rise in stock price.
If you look at their cash burn in Q4 2016 and Q2-Q3 2017, it doesn't fit with the press on the company or its stock performance at the time. Instead, the price hit all-time highs over that period and press was glowing.
I get that as the production numbers didn't increase along with capex there's a crunch in Q1-Q2 2018, but it doesn't seem to me that this is the reason behind tech news' change of heart.
I don't believe I did. It's not a conspiracy to point out that if the press is doing their job now by investigating things, they were not doing their job for years previously. If you don't do what you're supposed to for years, then suddenly change, is it a conspiracy to think that something caused that change?
It's not crazy to point out that the press hates Donald Trump, and that Donald Trump loves Elon Musk. It's also not crazy to point out that there's a general cooling of the public's feeling towards tech, and that journalists, particularly hacks, just go where the wind is blowing. It's not due to them suddenly doing their jobs, and it doesn't make them anymore correct now than they were six months ago. Elon Musk is now an easier target, that's all, and he's done them a service by provoking them at the same time.
The press hates Trump? I can find no shortage of press that loves him. How are you defining this mysterious group "The Press" and who is a member, who is not?
I think you are just seeing what you want to see.
I am also curious why you think there is a general cooling of the public's feeling towards tech?
You're right, you found them. Two of those were written by PR consultants, all of them are opinion pieces, and one was written by a republican speechwriter. How about something written by a person on staff as a writer representing a journalistic organization? You know, like these:
No true Scotsman, eh? I didn't know the author mattered, but now it does. What's next? Written at the wrong time? Then at the wrong place? Not long enough? Too obscure? Sigh... I'm done with your treasure hunt.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel rather dirty and I need to go take a shower.
Not really no true Scotsman. Opinions are sent in by people to be published in a part of the newspaper that is not actually affiliated with the newspaper's staff, and Forbes is famous for selling article space to PR.
It's not changing the goalposts to point out that these are not journalists, and they themselves would not call themselves journalists.
Using the true scotsman example, this is more like you brought me an example of a welsh person in Scotland.
> It's not changing the goalposts to point out that these are not journalists, and they themselves would not call themselves journalists.
What? You asked “could you easily find 5 articles or clips that are genuinely supportive and praising Trump?”
You never mentioned whether they had to be written by journalists or not.
--
All I did was search for “positive Trump articles” in Google and this came up. I spent all of 5 minutes.
How about this, you find me 5 articles written by 5 “true” journalists at Breitbart and Foxnews supporting Hillary Clinton and I'll find a way to say you didn't do as I asked.
No evidence that hacks go where the wind is blowing? That's just the history of journalism.
No evidence for the press hating Trump? Have you been alive for the past year and a half? Multiple journalists have compared him to Hitler and Stalin. I don't remember that happening before. It's understandable and clearly mutual in this case, though - check out how many places talk about his 'war on the press.'
No evidence for people souring on tech? Maybe you haven't been seeing the same things I have, but the narrative went from 'criminals are using facebook to target grandma' to 'facebook is criminal and rigging elections, and your apps might be too.' There's a reason for this and it's pretty justified, but it should really have happened years ago, when every startup was collecting every bit of data it could without any protection or thought to what they would use it for.
When tech started dominating the S&P 500, it went from being the land of outsiders and upstarts to the new robber barons. Check out how many articles talk about a new gilded age now.
No evidence for Musk provoking journalists? Just look at his twitter.
Maybe there is some meat behind these allegations; it seems that Musk has been losing his cool recently; like with the Thai cave incident when he called one of the rescuers a pedophile. Could be a sign that things are not going well.
> [edit: sorry, my mistake: the market cap reported is not actually outstanding shares times price, pointed out below]
Actually, market cap is outstanding shares times price. It is a value per company, not per class/type of shares traded. Sort of like how the same CEO would be listed under GOOG or GOOGL. You'll see the same market cap listed under GOOG or GOOGL.
> What makes you think that? Stereotyping perhaps?
Look at the quasi racist stuff this guy wrote. He obviously doesn't like asians for some reason.
"Harvard and the other Ivies don't want to keep out asian people. They want to keep out boring, myopic applicants who spend all day studying to achieve the grades and scores they have and show little sign of interest in contributing to the outside world beyond getting a well-paying job as a lawyer or doctor and raising a family comfortably."
The guy claims to have been an admissions officer at an ivy league school. Doesn't seem likely.
I've had an admissions officer at MIT scream at me--handing out leaflets at a protest--that MIT "doesn't admit people like me any more." I think he meant to communicate that they were aiming at more complacent people who would participate on the rails--as admissions officers of his era imagined Millenials to be. "Whoops"
He's out of admissions and lecturing physics at U Kentucky now, which seems a fair result. But anyway, these groups hire bozos to do the low-tier work. The heads of admissions are usually fantastic, but the clerks are lower quality than average because of supply issues.
Just remember that the heads of admissions are the ones coming up with these policies (in tandem with other university leaders) and personally reviewing all the applicants in the end to make sure they're carried out.
> Harvard insists this was unbiased, but it's pretty incredible that Asians score so low on these measures and African-Americans so highly.
Considering asians are considered "model minorities" and the best "assimilated" minority group in the US, it does seem odd. Also considering harvard alumni interviewers generally rated asian personalities just as high as everyone else's, I wonder why there is such a divergence from american culture at large/alumni and admissions' officers?
I wonder if there are transcripts or video recordings of interviews and a methodology these admissions officers used.
It would be great if harvard released all data ( minus identifying info ) and we could look through the dataset.
> asians are considered "model minorities" and the best "assimilated" minority
By who? What data is there? A stereotype is not evidence; repetition doesn't make it more likely. Nor can we infer from a stereotype - or even real data about assimilation - something about the personalities of individuals.
Right, because there isn't much racial discrimination against Asians (though perhaps among founders and CEOs), and not against white people and males either. There is against women and other minorities, so that would seem to be the place to focus our efforts.
> What data is there? A stereotype is not evidence;
Education attainment? Income? Interracial Marriage? Sure a stereotype isn't evidence. But my point is that both the nation at large "stereotypically" and alumni ( after interviewing asians ) both rated asian personalities at the same level or better than other races. Given that evidence, why did admissions officers rate asians a couple of standard deviations below other races?
> something about the personalities of individuals.
But we aren't inferring personalities of individuals. We are inferring personalities of racial groups.
> We are inferring personalities of racial groups.
Personalities are characteristics of individuals. Racial groups don't have a scientific basis regardless, and "Asia" covers a vast world from India to Korea to Indonesia to Kazakhstan to Pakistan to Tibet to Cambodia to Japan ... it's absurd to suggest you can say anything about all these individuals that doesn't apply to all humanity. My own family members have very different personalities.
> By us? By our culture? By the media?
> the nation at large "stereotypically" ... rated asian personalities at the same level or better than other races
Not in my experience and I sure don't. Is there any basis for this? And see my comment above.
> The outcome is racist but there's no intent to be racist.
Then why do college admissions factor in race at all?
> Their grades and scores are STELLAR!
But the complaint is that their grades and scores aren't stellar. That lower grades and scores are being chosen over higher grades and scores based apparently on race.
> What's going to happen to campus social life if half the class has a history of not being social at all?
Once again, the complaint is that people with equal or better extracurricular activities and better grades are being passed over based on race.
> No one is out to discriminate against asian people, their applications are just very problematic at scale.
But we know this isn't true. We know that college admins have discriminated before.
Your argument is just a rehash of the anti-semitic discrimination against jews decades ago.
Legal fatherhood is determined by law. Biological fatherhood is determined by science/genetics. Also, adoption isn't a common practice. Adoptions happen, but they are rare.
Ideally, legal and biological fatherhood should be one and the same. That way you can find your genetic history for medical purposes and legal family tree for historical purposes. But tragically, in a few cases, legal and biological fathers are not the same.
> I'm sure many adoptees would disagree with your assessment that their situation is tragic.
Ideally ( all things being equal ), adoptees would want to be with their "ideal" biological parents. Of course if the biological parents are dead, abusive or too poor to provide for them ( tragic ), then adoption is better than nothing. But I can't think of any child who wouldn't want to be with their biological parents all things being equal.
You could play with people on your own level?
> At least with rec sports the community is generally nice even if you're terrible (probably because you're in-person).
Really? Try playing pick-up basketball games if you are terrible. Even with rec sports, people play at their own level.
> Anyway, my point being that I wouldn't be shocked to learn that women (and likely people of color) feel the same way - once you're not really part of that core group of young white men
Young white men? Why are you being racist and sexist by targeting one group?
People don't play online games or recreational sports for "community". Seems like you are lonely and trying to make friends in the wrong places.
I play sports because it's fun and good exercise. I play video games because it's fun and mentally challenging. I don't play sports or video games for community.
> competitive games start feeling really unappealing unless you're just really into the game itself.
Then don't play it. Go play something else? Why are you complaining about it?
Maybe women on average don't like competitive games for the same reason women don't like other competitive sports like basketball, baseball, etc? Maybe, men and women are on average different and have different interests. Maybe that's why advertisers go about targeting men and women different? Maybe that's why movies, music, etc are differently geared towards men and women?
Or, maybe you could push your racist and sexist rhetoric and blame young white men?