The opposite could be argued as well: it's design supposed to focus on function alone (after all that was their pitch: put the content front and center, remove aesthetic touches from the "skeuomorphic" UIs, etc.) but with no redeeming aesthetic qualities (which are also important for actual human users).
So, it's not exactly form over function (besides thought into form is necessary for function - you can have a real world lever that is e.g. thin and crooked and it will still function as a lever, but a good lever also has good form -- e.g. be designed to have a good grip).
It's "design ideology and novelty for some manager's sake" over form and function.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that a company with the resources of Facebook are quicker to pull down a post by a practicing medical doctor stating masks aren't 100% effective than they are to pull down a post inciting violence in a country that has been in the middle of such violence for the last 3 years?
The problem with opinions like yours isn't that they're wrong, it's that you've lost all perspective.
Facebook drew up some pretty clear guidelines about what was permitted in terms of posting covid related opinions. That makes it very simple for them to make decisions regarding removing flagged posts about masks or vaccines.
Facebook doesn't have a set of approved guidelines on what news Ethiopian media can report about their own domestic conflict. The article doesn't share the content of the post in question, so it's impossible to tell, but they don't say that it violated Facebook's general community guidelines in regards to hatespeech or provoking violence. The article just states an opinion of one person that the local media created a post blaming the wrong group.
I don't see how facebook can judge whether that news report is right or wrong. It's just he said/she said.
If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period. What people get backwards is thinking that if the actions that led up to the razing were themselves not ethically problematic, then the result has no bearing on whether or not we should continue allowing said actions.
Then there's the fact that actual FB employee's have gone on record that FB is making things worse in Ethiopia. Or aren't we allowed to take that into account when condemning FB?
Discounting this as being simply "he said/she said" is itself ethically dubious.
"If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period"
This is where we fundamentally disagree then. I think perfectly innocent things can contribute to deadly consequences.
For instance, Timothy McVeigh rented a moving truck and filled it with fertilizer to blow up Oklahoma City. But I don't think renting moving trucks or buying farming essentials are morally wrong.
I also don't think that posting on Facebook or Facebook algorithmically promoting posts that gain traction is wrong.
Like I said in my original comment, the worst thing you can say about Facebook here is that they're not picking sides in a messy ethnic conflict happening in a foreign country.
We've banned this account for posting flamebait comments.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
We don't care about profanity—the issue is comment quality. Your comments have unfortunately been unsubstantive and flamebaity, which is not what we want here. Since each comment evokes more of that same type of comment from others, this is rather important.
Since you've chosen to go with a false equivalency using an apples-to-oranges comparison, lets rewrite that
"If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period"
People shot guns while hunting all the time, therefore the actions of Cheney that led up to him shooting his friend are both acceptable, things we should continue doing, and should under no circumstances be expected to change in future hunts.
^ Because you see ... it doesn't matter that other people have successfully gone hunting and shot guns in the past, what matters are the specific circumstances that led to Cheney shooting another human being.
---
What happens is that people like you want to point to the firing of the gun and argue that firing guns is legal therefore Cheney did nothing wrong.
Everyone understand the flaw in that logic, I don't even have to explain it.
---
FB did nothing wrong everyone! FB is just displaying text on a webpage, something people do all the time!
Most places have stopped asking me to sign when I make a purchase less than $X with my debit card (Generally around $25). Their thought process is that it's much faster cycling people through and the risk of money loss isn't worth the loss in throughput.
What you quoted is specifically for less than 200 transactions in a calendar year. The implication being that any account involving 200 or more transactions in a calendar year will need that information.
Which brings about two points.
1. Exactly how much money can someone launder buying < 200 csgo skins in a calendar year (are we arguing that they're paying $50k per skin?), and
2. How exactly does the idea that they've decided to take on some risk to decrease friction incompatible with not wanting to deal with NFT's, which *COULD* conceivably go for $50k a pop.
So they get legal ownership of the artwork the NFT points to? Wait, what do you mean they don't? What do you mean all they get is a legally unenforceable digital hash representing that they "own" it in some nebulous way? What do you mean the actual owner of the art can mint a million NFTs pointing to the same piece of art and sell them all? What do you mean someone who isn't even the actual owner of the art can mint an NFT for it and sell it?
But it seems to me you just don't like NFTs. Most people who buy them know exactly what all this is about. If NFTs were "deceptive" in some ways (and of course there are always projects with 10K bot followers that aren't legit),then I'd agree with you. But I think for NFT people, it is what it is.
yet interestingly, if they weigh those odds and come down on the side of waiting for more information, you come after them and tell them they're wrong while simultaneously telling them they must weigh the odds.
You don't actually want them weighing the odds, you just want to imply they're wrong without being histrionic about it.
No, I want them to weigh the odds in a rational manner. We have a ton of data and it's been well analyzed at this point, consistently supporting the vaccines being safe and effective.
When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically.
> When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically.
They did exactly that, to quote them:
"I use my common sense to know that a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 does not have a long enough track record to assure safety."
No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks".
My favorite part is how you set the bar to "something that can be evaluated scientifically", without also admitting that __"SCIENCE", IS IN THE MIDDLE OF EVALUATING__.
This is the reason no one trusts people like you, your willingness to dishonesty and misrepresentation makes you untrustworthy. Nothing anyone says will change anything other than the bar you claim others should be clearing, said bar just so happening to cause everyone to land on your opinion.
Not even the CDC takes a stance as strong as yours.
> No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks".
You know, you can see what I actually wrote in the quote — note the key word missing from this paraphrase: rational. I am certain that they made a subjective assessment of the risks — my point was that they hadn't critically analyzed that decision but still want it to be treated as equal in merit to the scientific consensus.
A key part of science is testing your beliefs: that's what the scientists who've spent decades working on mRNA vaccines did, that's what the extensive trials leading up to approval were for, and it's quite telling that you are both not doing that and trying to claim that ongoing monitoring means that the results of that earlier work are unreliable. Yes, scientists are still evaluating evidence — that's what they do! — but when it consistently points to the same conclusion over a long period of time and has been used to make accurate predictions, it starts to be considered a consensus.
I think the worst part of your entire post is that your argument boils down to it being irrational to wait until more complete information is known.
Let me quote them again so we're clear on the context that started this conversation.
> ... a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 __does not have a long enough track record to assure safety__.
Lets consider how you responded
"why do you feel more qualified to say it's unsafe than the people who have spent their entire careers focused on it?"
I would love for you to explain why that's a reasonable response to what the other poster said. Or explain how the other posters statement is irrational.
Because that's the major problem people like you have. You even start attacking me for the egregious wrongthink of not calling someone irrational for having the opinion that we can't be assured of its safety __YET__.
And I realize I'm not going to get through to you, but here's an observation for you.
When you start lumping such middle-of-the-road opinions in with people who believe covid can be spread through 5G networks it's possible you're part of the problem.
The worst part is the other poster claiming you only believe that because of the misinformation of your news sources, not realizing they also have news sources which could be misinforming them.
It's reasonable to be leery of a vaccine produced in such a small amount of time when most vaccines go through much more rigor.
And making claims such as "it's been thoroughly tested" is balderdash. It's like claiming your software has been thoroughly tested because you push straight to production with minimal testing after someone says they won't use your software because they don't want to be the testers of your software.
We're still learning about both the virus and the vaccine. In 10 years we'll be a lot more confident in our knowledge, and what's "known" about it will be a lot more trustworthy.
