We used to wipe out all kinds of animals that were deemed pests only to find out later on that these animals served a role in an ecosystem.

I personally do not mosquitoes and wouldn't mind if they weren't around. But I hope we are absolutely sure that we know what we are doing and don't regret wiping out these mosquitoes a century later. Hopefully there aren't any unintended consequences.

Don't birds and other insects eat mosquitoes?

You can see the absurdity of veganism as they proudly support locally sourced organic food but their diet makes "locally sourced organic food" an impossibility. A vegan anywhere on earth will die without importing avocados, all kinds of seeds, vegetation, etc from all over the world and still be lacking nutrients and have to resort to lab processed supplements. Real "natural" and "organic".

And omnivore ( a diet of every human society ) can have diet from locally sources. You can have a homestead almost anywhere and as an omnivore survive just from your own homestead. A vegan homestead can't exist anywhere because you can't grow all the necessary vegetation and supplements to survive.

Veganism is one of these great lies that seem "good" on surface but dig a little deeper and people will see what an absurd notion it is.

Everything from "fat is bad" or "cholesterol is bad" for you has been pretty much walked back.

And nonsense like "cereal or orange juice is part of a healthy breakfast" are "science" funded by the cereal and orange industries. It's marketing pretending to be a science.

Now the vegan charlatans selling their eating disorder to young and impressionable kids. The saddest part is that it is mostly young females falling for when they are at a critical stage of development. Almost all of them will leave veganism eventually but the curse of veganism will stay with them for the rest of their lives. In 30 years, we are going to have an epidemic of medical issues like osteoporosis, especially among women.

Balanced diet. It's simple. An omnivore diet that was part of ever human society.

The book covers an old version of linux which had a few thousand lines of code.

And I have to disagree with you about the worst communities. The worst communities are those with too much guidelines. Of course some guidelines are necessary, but mostly those involving harrassment, not speech. The US is based on the idea of less guidelines. North Korea, China, Russia, etc are based on "lots of guidelines". And the death spiral can go boths ways. Just as much to totalitarianism as it can go to anarcy.

Also, it's not an exaggeration that "insults and inflammatory language" is stifling. It's the definition of it. Anything can be considered insulting to anyone. That's why we have principled understanding of free speech. The basis of free speech is that you have the right to offend. Otherwise, you claiming that the earth is round is offensive and inflammatory to a flat earther and grounds for censorship.

You seem to think that just because I think someone should be allowed to say "an argument is stupid" is me advocating for anarchy or harrassment. I'm not. Also, "insults" aren't that insulting to everyone. Language that you find offensive isn't offensive to me. And I don't consider Linux's language to be offensive. But you do. But that's the point isn't it. Everyone has a diverse upbringing and diverse opinions.

Also I'd stay away from the term "bad behavior" because that's the same terminology the chinese government uses to crack down on its own citizens and oppress them. It's rather paternalistic and authoritarian which reminds people of the worse form of nanny states.

And last thing, why do you care how linux speaks. He is his own individual. Does he come to you and tell you how you should speak? I just find it the high of arrogance that you ( a relative nobody just like me ) has the gall to tell someone like Linux how he should speak or behave. If you don't like it, just don't read what he says. That's what I find frustrating. Why do you feel like you get to tell others how to live their lives?

At the end of the day, the people at HN can do what they want because it's their property. Regular users like you and I won't change anything. Just like we aren't going to change Linux or the platform he uses to express his opinions. I wish I could have changed your mind but I think I failed so I'll just end it here too. I just find it strange that anyone on hacker news would be demanding that linus torvalds or anyone for that matter be censored.

What does Q have to do with outrage? Is Q responsible for Smollet and the race baiting by CNN and the rest of the media? Is Q responsible for the russia fearmongering?

Are you really blaming small fringe youtube channels for the current state of affairs? Most people get brainwashed into hysteria by CNN, MSBNC, Foxnews, NYTimes, etc, not fringe youtube channels.

Conspiracy has been on youtube and the internet forever. It's nothing new and it is fringe.

What's new is that the entire media apparatus has decided to shift blame onto social media for the problems they caused. The extremism isn't on youtube, it's on CNN, MSBNC, NYTimes, WashingtonPost, Huffpo, Buzzfeed, TheVerge and all the rest of the media.

They are the ones spreading conspiracies. They are the ones spread lies. They are the ones spreading hate. They are the ones claiming one side are nazis and the other side are commies. They are the ones lying about trump being a putin slave just like 8 years ago some in the media painted obama as a foreign born muslim.

The only ones blaming "Q" are propagandists working for the media or politically affiliated groups. 99% of americans haven't even heard of Q. But 99% of americans have heard the hate-filled divisive propaganda from CNN, MSBNC, NYTimes, WashingtonPost, etc.

Blaming social media for the current outrage is like blaming mortgage borrowers, rather than the multinational banks for the financial crisis. It's absurd.

Also, don't you think it's a bit odd that outrage has increased since youtube, google, facebook, etc shifted their algorithm to favor CNN, MSBNC, NYTimes, WashingtonPost, etc. I wonder why.

And most importantly, much of the outrage is coming from the left, not the fringe Q crowd. You know the people consuming CNN, MSBNC, NYTimes, WashingtonPost, etc. But we can blame "Q" or "4chan" or "russia" or any of the other nonsense the people pretending to be journalists love to spout.

Did rolling stone intentionally lying about campus rape cause the problem or social media? Is the media constantly peddling lies like "campus rape crisis", "racist attacks", etc the problem or social media?

I don't remember social media having this level of problem until the news industry forced it's way into social media.

The outrage isn't being driven by social media. It's being driven by the news industry and the media in general. But I guess blaming russia hasn't worked so now we can scapegoat social media.

From UVA to Covington to Mollett and everything else, is it the platform or the journalists, celebrities, etc creating the message.

I studied philosophy in college so I don't need an explanation of what poisoning the well is. "Poisoning the well" itself is poisoning the well and I don't want to get into the intricacies of ad hominems and logical fallacies. Many times, people misunderstand logical fallacies and use logical fallacies themselves to stifle debate.

Also, Linus wasn't having an argument or a debate. He was giving his opinion. He is allowed to say someone's argument is stupid : "how stupid your argument is.". He didn't call people stupid, he called the argument stupid.

Finally, ad hominems may or may not stifle discussion from the passionless or people who don't care about the topic, but it never stifles discussion from passionate people or people who care about a topic. Every major debate - going back to religious debates or debates about science or debates about slavery or debates about civil rights or anything else was "passionate". Can you imagine these debates being shut down because that's not what "polite company discusses"?

And why would it matter whether you virtue signal anonymously or not? You are already anonymous as HN is thankfully an anonymous forum. One thing HN is fairly good about ( as far as I know ) is anonymity.

I don't believe in ad hominems or attacking people. But if people want to use harsh language to express ideas they are passionate about, I say go for it. The same goes for you. You seem passionate about the subject and I support your right to express it in whatever manner you choose. What I find ironic is that under the aegis of "inclusivity and encouraging discussion", you are advocating for exclusion and stifling Linux Torvalds' speech. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Certainly, you can see that you are doing precisely what you claim Torvalds is doing - stifling speech ( or at least advocating for it ).

It's amazing how everyone from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Linus Torvalds is labeled as "toxic" and yet the "toxic" environment they created led to substantial advancements.

And poisoning the well ( or any ad hominem derivatives ) doesn't stop discussion, it generally leads to more discussions - though often times more contentious and off topic. And though I agree that it can make people angry, polarized and amp up the stakes, those aren't necessarily bad things. Most of the time, it is actually a good thing and a basis for competition.

Finally, I'd say HN has a different culture, not necessarily better. Also, what you are doing could be viewed as a form of shaming and virtue signaling. And at the end of the day, if you don't like linus's style of communication, you don't have to read or listen to it.

I don't understand the mentality of "I don't like it so you should change".

To your last point, if that is true, then what will the differences be when both the OS and CPU architectures are different? I suspect it will create even more headaches.

I don't see ARM winning the server space anytime soon or ever considering how established and dominant x86 is.

Having said that, I'm actually for immigration. But H-1B isn't immigration, no more than human trafficking is immigration.

Immigrants, like Jerry Yang and Sergei Brin, can start and own businesses. Do you know what H-1B visa holders are forbidden to do? They can't start or own businesses. Interesting huh? I laugh whenever pro-H-1B visas try to lie about how H-1B visas is the reason why Yahoo and Google exists. When H-1B explicitly prevent you from starting businesses. Had Yang and Brin be H-1B visa holders rather than being actual immigrant americans, they would not have been able to create yahoo and google.

So the H-1B visa was created so that foreign workers can compete against american workers, but not against american business owners. Isn't that great for business owners?

If you are for immigration, workers rights and plain fairness, then you'd be against H-1B visas because it's purely exploitation by billionaires so that billionaires can profit.

Why not do away with H-1B visas and shift it to real immigration ( which I support ) so that they have actual rights and can start businesses themselves and create jobs?

How about a non-exploitive and fair immigration policy rather than a exploitive non-immigration visa like H-1B? How about we let these foreign workers compete against both the billionaire owners and the workers? Why protect billionaires from competition and subject stressed american workers with more competition?

Ignoring the fact that "90% of tech workers there were born outside the USA" is absolutely false, what does that have to do with H-1B visas?

It could be true that 90% of tech workers were born outside the USA and none of them could be H-1B visa holders. There are plenty of american tech workers who immigrated to the US as a child and became american citizens. Like sergei brin or jerry yang. They may be born outside the US, but none of them are H-1B visa holders. They were all american citizens.

The fact that you are intentionally lying and being sneaky with stats is very worrisome.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19156756

As I corrected your lies in that thread, I'll correct them here as well.

H-1B visas had nothing to do with Silicon Valley. The H-1B visa was created in 1990. Silicon Valley had already existed for decades by then. How can H-1B visas be the reason that Silicon Valley exists if Silicon Valley predates H-1B visas by decades?

You do realize that H-1B visas aren't confined solely to Silicon Valley right? Zuckerburg could have gotten H-1B visas workers to work in Massachussettes. There are plenty of interviews by zuckerburg stating why he moved to california. It had nothing to do with H-1B visas.

And H-1B visas doesn't prevent zuckerburg from opening offices all over the world.

Canada is a country, not a small region like silicon valley. And if canada becomes the new silicon valley, good for them. Please stop repeating the same lies over and over again.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19222296

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

The idea that a nation of 350 million people can't supply the workers needed for the US economy is nonsense. What it really means is that corporations want to use foreign workers to cap wages. Or it could be that corporations and governments haven't done a good job developing the work force they needed. That's their problem, not the american people.

I can see a temporary workers program being useful after a catastrophic event like a world war where millions of your people are killed and you need to rebuild. But in peacetime, it's not needed.

I think we are mostly agreed but you seem to have been misreading my comments. My point is let indonesia do whatever it wants with its land to develop and get itself out of poverty. Norway should mind its own business. Considering your other comment, I think we can both agree on that.

http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html