Readit NewsI find it interesting that people think rules can only be enforced by a position of power above the offender, rather than a consensus of their peers and equals.
Deleted Comment
I think streaming worked for me for a while. I have a kid, I totally get the convenience and comfort of it, but I also miss being around and experiencing movies with human beings in person. Home theaters and viewing parties are no substitute for this. Watching with people in other settings is also not a replacement for this. I miss the collective excitement and one that's in person. I miss going somewhere that's out of my house for the purpose of enjoying a film that's thrilling or at the very least entertaining.
Not knocking the choice of fully digital streaming. It works for people and that's great, I still take advantage of that convenience, but there is something hugely lacking because I'm not going somewhere to share the experience with people. And I think some of that will entirely change how and where I watch movies next e.g do not want to solely rely on streaming, do not want to watch alone, preferably want to be in a group of less than 10 people.
Who else is with me?
Where do I go? How do I search for something worthwhile? There's no central space to find it, compare communities etc. I was curious but now I am kind of put off.
I did this for a "dead" forum and after about a week of "squatting" there and posting for myself, other people started showing up and replying to it.
People should treat the digital silence of dead communities as an asset and free real estate to share their thoughts.
Deleted Comment
Also, please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
He declared, unsourced and uncited, that Winston Churchill thought that people with "brown skin" were "subhuman savages." He then declared that because Churchill had these supposed opinions, he was not worthy of any human decency, that he was in effect a subhuman.
Furthermore, he declared that anyone who had any issue with that assessment had a share by contagion of Churchill's unpersoning. That's not civilized or cultured. There is a word for that.
A core trait of civilization is that members are entitled to the rights of citizens, which almost categorically include equal protection under the law and in the West a recognition of a shared humanity even among those that aren't citizens.
More explicitly, this is a trait of Christian civilizations. Churchill, who did believe in a developmental hierarchy, also believed that Anglo-Saxons were superior to other peoples because they had this categorical understanding of human value.
If someone arbitrarily rejects this core aspect of civilization (i.e. lacking in it), attempts to dehumanize those who do have it in a combative and dismissive manner is by definition a savage.
If pointing out that words mean things results in warnings and threats of bans, then I don't want to be a part of your circus anyway. I hope your city and industry meet the fate it deserves.
I agree that it is important to have a full and complete historical record, but Netflix is interested in making money, and I recently read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to my six year old and he loved it. So I started to read Charlie and the Glass Elevator to him and stopped only a few pages in when some very offensive caricatures of Chinese people talking in English showed up. And I haven't read my son any more Dahl since then, because I was genuinely shocked at what I had just read, stopped that book after that chapter, and went off to read something else instead, and haven't gotten around to James and the Giant Peach or Matilda again. It interrupted what could have been a lovely flow of Dahl books. So I can understand why the people who control the Dahl Company- and desperately want people like me to read his stories to people like my son- are stealth-editing them to kill the offensive stuff, so that I will buy more books, read them to my son, and then he will 30 years from now buy them and read them to his children because they have nostalgic value for him: they remind him of his dad reading to him.
This censorship isn't happening because of the iron hand of the state or anything like that. It's the result of people making choices within a capitalist system. It's because I have lots of great stories to choose from to read to my six year old, so why would I choose one that I have to explain lots of ugly bigotry? So Netflix is choosing to try and sand down those problems that might keep someone like me from reading the book to my kid, in a totally understandable way. And, as the rights owner trying to maximize revenue, that is their prerogative.
Dead Comment
Edit: Because apparently this isn't clear enough:
1. Real world phenomena and technical projects are two distinctive categories, each encompassing a wealth of unique information.
2. Namespaces serve as unique identifiers, used to prevent naming conflicts in various domains.
3. When these namespaces are used within both real-world phenomena and technical projects, they overlap.
4. Overlapping namespaces, by their nature, blur the boundaries between distinctive categories.
5. Search engines operate by categorizing and associating information based on identifiers, specifically namespaces.
6. When these identifiers are blurred, the precision of search engines is compromised.
7. As search engine precision diminishes, the efficacy of search results for users decreases.
8. The reduction in search results efficacy translates to increased search times and decreased productivity, or an inability to find anything about the topic whatsoever due to results pruning.
9. A decrease in productivity is an indirect impact of namespace pollution, disrupting both those living in the real-world and those looking for technical information.
10. We already have to deal with SEO. We shouldn't need to deal with this as well.