So in summary what you're saying is, we should go with hearsay and sum all hearsay together, multiply all false claims and use those to guide our government.
Nice.
Hey, why do we use significant figures to guide our multiplication?
Anyway even if we do believe all hearsay, you have to admit kill 99.999999999% of civilians is still a better policy then kill 100% (Gaza's policy).
So your other points still don't matter.
You've opted to defund the kill some policy while still funding the kill all policy. And simultaneously you're critiquing it. You have to admit, there's not just a little bias there. It's something deeper.
Yeah, that's a very specific error for a specific function. HN has a thing where they can manually mark accounts as throttled - my understanding its when you have a habit of replying emotionally and repeatedly to the same thread. So this, helpfully, gives you a pseudo-timeout to reflect before jumping back in, which in theory increases constructive responses, and at least prevents littering.
"Your account is rate limited. We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars."
What part of this differs from how I described it, except I was more polite and didn't say you were posting low-quality comments, or doing a flame war?
Your argumentative confusing responses used to frustrate me but you're putting a smile on my face now. Idk what's going on over there, but I have a feeling you know you're doing it, you're enjoying it, and I'm genuinely happy to hear that. יברכך יהוה וישמרך
How would you automate a system that throttles low quality posts? It relies on downvotes. When people downvote your comments, you are "rate limited" for a short duration.
That, of course, leaves open the problem of people downvoting stuff they disagree with, regardless of quality.
Essentially, the system works, but in many cases, a downvote means you're right and the downvoter doesn't like being wrong. That causes an unjustified throttling. Oh well...
https://hackernews.hn/item?id=35157524
So in summary what you're saying is, we should go with hearsay and sum all hearsay together, multiply all false claims and use those to guide our government.
Nice.
Hey, why do we use significant figures to guide our multiplication?
Anyway even if we do believe all hearsay, you have to admit kill 99.999999999% of civilians is still a better policy then kill 100% (Gaza's policy).
So your other points still don't matter.
You've opted to defund the kill some policy while still funding the kill all policy. And simultaneously you're critiquing it. You have to admit, there's not just a little bias there. It's something deeper.