It's quite strange though when you consider the fastest way to get egg on your face is to do something badly because you didn't understand and just made it up instead of looking it up
> We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap
If shame worked, then slop reports would've stopped being made already. Public ridicule only creates a toxic environment where good faith actors are caught up in unnecessary drama because a maintainer felt their time was being wasted. Ban them, close your bug bounty program, whatever, but don't start attacking people when you feel slighted because that never ends well for anyone (including curl maintainers)
That's sort of the whole point of this thought exercise, no? If shame worked in an environment with anonymous/pseudonymous users, then we wouldn't be here. The only people you stand to harm are the ones who attach their real identities to their profile (and they're more likely to be good faith IMO)
Besides, I've seen plenty of profiles here on HN who advertise their real name and espouse (in my view) awful takes that would most likely not fly in real life. I'd recommend reading this article[0] for an example of when people, with their real names exposed, can still cause a shitstorm of misunderstanding.
This is 100% true. I've seen this happen over and over again.
Shaming does not work, you look like an idiot, people will start to despise you and then you end up ostracizing yourself from the rest of the community and the only ones left within your bubble, are circle jerk assholes.
It's one of those cases where you end up causing more harm than the ones you were complaining about.
> Anytime people criticize betting, it looks to me like some kind of utopian scheme
This is how I feel, too. Life is all about risk management and a life where you take no risk is one where you have nothing. People make bets all the time: areas they move to, people they ask out, jobs they take, what foods they eat, etc. which is clearly different than going to the casino and putting it all on red.
Gold front-runs monetary policy, meaning central banks and people use it as a hedge against currency devaluation or other uncertainty (e.g. the U.S. Federal Reserve being taken over by the executive)
Now look at the gold chart over this past year. Yeah, people are uneasy and we're likely to see a lot of printing.
It's not a lot. Multiple countries could offload hundreds of billions and the U.S. Treasury would buy them up immediately (and probably ask the Federal Reserve for some help the next day)
I can't find the program name at the moment, but the Treasury plans for situations like this regularly.
We've certainly planned for single allies going unhinged - but what we didn't plan for was us going unhinged and causing all our allies to take retaliatory actions. If France, Denmark, Germany, Britain - any one of them was swept up in nationalistic fervor and turned their back on our multi-lateral alliances we could easily weather that storm... when it's us though, that threatens the USD's acceptance as the defacto trading currency especially at a time when BRICS is semi-coherent and we're weathering a recent inflationary burst. This is like a perfect storm.
Definitely, I think there'd be a crisis if our biggest holders like the UK and Japan sold off their treasury securities but some "small" selloffs aren't outside the realm of possibilities. Trillions in selloffs though, that might get interesting.
In case you are interested in more than definitions of words: Bond investors do not care if you default by giving them a haircut, doing things like forcefully extending the term to 100 years or lowering the currency value by printing money.
In either case they will adjust their future risk premium of US govt. bonds and of course price in future inflation.
One might be able to hide the money printing for a while, though, while the haircut is explicit.
Venting all the time can actually be quite harmful to the venter. Negative energy drives change and if all you're doing is offloading then you're going to get stuck in a loop of feeling bad -> vent -> repeat while the underlying problem doesn't get solved.
The next trap is loudly announcing how you’re going to get yourself out of that situation, getting the neurotransmitter hit that comes from the announcement, and then never doing it.
I have a person who has distanced themselves from me because I don’t provide the feedback they crave when they do this for the eleventieith time. I only have so many spoons and that passion play feels like throwing them in the garbage disposal. I just can’t for my own well being. Sorry.
Being stuck in any emotional overreaction state is harmful.
There are a lot of people reciting the academic concept of validating emotions without endorsing them in this thread, but in the real world when you consistently "validate emotions" of someone who is over-reacting, it becomes an implicit endorsement.
In the real world, the people I've known to get stuck in negative emotion states did much worse when they surrounded themselves with people who constantly validated their emotions in the academic speak that's being used in this thread.
> It is crazy that so many in US STILL think tariffs are being paid for by exporting countries.
They knew it was a lie then, and they know it's one now. A plurality of voters want what's happening currently, they're not crazy, it's just a mix of xenophobia, isolationism, and inbreeding.
Right, because an agency supposedly meant for "immigration enforcement" being sent to cities of the President's opponents so they can crackdown on protests and harass citizens is different... how? Is being persecuted for your religion worse than being persecuted for your political beliefs?
There is a secret police force actively patrolling the streets, going door-to-door asking for papers, shooting American citizens and your response is "it's not that bad"?
This frames escalation as if it’s an inevitable byproduct of “not cooperating,” but that’s a choice. Sanctuary policies generally limit voluntary local participation (e.g., detainers without judicial warrants), they don’t “block” federal enforcement.
“If you don’t want door-to-door, cooperate” is basically saying federal agencies get to punish jurisdictions for lawful policy choices by switching to more coercive tactics. That’s not normal enforcement; it’s politicized leverage. And once you normalize that logic, it won’t stay confined to immigration.
> “If you don’t want door-to-door, cooperate” is basically saying federal agencies get to punish jurisdictions for lawful policy choices by switching to more coercive tactics.
If you make any level noncooperation law against federal law enforcement, you are effectively creating the requirement that for the feds to enforce the law the federal government has to change their tactics. That’s not punishment, it’s just the effect of the decision you made.
> That’s not normal enforcement; it’s politicized leverage.
It’s not normal enforcement, but neither is noncooperation. Sanctuary cities are not the norm. It’s a form of political leverage too.
> And once you normalize that logic, it won’t stay confined to immigration.
Right…and you could also say the same thing about sanctuary policies too. So what if a city or area decided that they were going to be a sanctuary for people who violate the civil rights act? Would the federal government be justified in using different tactics in its enforcement of that law?
There are threads here you don’t want to accidentally pull because they will unravel whole sections of cloth that you want to keep intact.
You pretending that this is merely federal agents enforcing immigration laws is delusion. Thousands of agents being sent to one city and hundreds more promised after backlash is not immigration enforcement, it's punishment for dissent.
> If you don’t want the door to door enforcement, have your local officials become cooperative in enforcing the immigration laws
Since when did States need to "cooperate" with federal law enforcement to avoid masked thugs terrorizing the populace? Weren't right wingers all about States' Rights under Democrat administrations?
> So no, I am not going to downplay and dishonor the victims of the the human rights violations of China by comparing it to what is happening here
I didn't ask you to "downplay" human rights violations done by China, I asked if you thought one type of persecution was worse than the other. Clearly you don't have an issue with the persecution happening in the US, so thanks for making that clear at least.
If you don’t like a law, change it. If your representatives are not representing you, elect new representatives who will.
If you don’t want immigration enforcement, don’t elect someone who ran on that platform.
And, no…I do not believe that our enforcing immigration laws that were passed in a bi-partisan and supported as is by presidents from both parties and enforced by presidents from both parties are in any way, shape, or form equivalent of what China has done specifically to the Uyghurs.
Perhaps soft skills are too squishy and/or broad of a term to be useful then. It seems like these discussions always go "maybe you, as the developer, just need to learn how to do soft skills properly?" in response to business types exhibiting an undesirable behavior. Sure, smooth talking and playing into someones personality might be more successful (albeit with a lot more hot air), but all of you are supposed to be working towards a goal. If someone gets hung up because you weren't smooth enough, I would think they're a bad faith actor who doesn't actually want to get something done.
But I’m not talking about “smooth talking” here; in response to the above example —- where engineering is asking questions that that the business things had not answered because they are presumably “unimportant” —- there is almost certainly a communication breakdown happening.
Likely, one of the following is happening:
* The questions are important to the business but engineering has failed to articulate why getting the answers are critical to the business. (Some engineers have a tendency to describe problems in the scope of how it affects their own job or task, but neglect the larger picture or fail to articulate any consequences)
* The questions actually aren’t important for the business to answer and the engineer fails to understand how their task supports the goals of the business
* The questions are important but they cannot be answered by the business. The engineer might need to gather more information before to generate actionable questions, or maybe the questions should be answered by engineering themselves.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)
reply