I wonder if hybridizing this with selective use of randomness to probe beyond frontiers leads to another speedup.
Readit NewsDijkstra _could_ be universally taught in 7th grade if we had the curriculum for that. Maybe I'm biased, but it doesn't seem conceptually significantly more difficult than solving first degree equations, and we teach those in 7th grade, at least in Finland where I'm from.
For sure! The main thing keeping us from teaching advanced things to younger folks is the seeming addiction to teaching poorly/ineffectively. I'm here to find the physical play-with-your-hands demonstrations needed for teaching kids as young as 5 the intuitions/concepts behind higher-order category theory without all the jargon.
> "genocidal rhetoric" doesn't necessarily imply rightness or wrongness
I believe you when you describe your perspective this way, but it's so far beyond conventional usage that it may be misleading to express it in this way. Certainly I didn't understand your GP comment as being anywhere near what you're saying here, and I doubt others would.
It's true...conventional usage is rooted in addiction to violence, which includes dualistic myths of right/wrong, life/death, like/dislike, belief/disbelief.
Perhaps a site-wide call for curiosity when encountering such myths could help spur people to pull themselves out of such ways of "killing" nondual animist views of experience.
The main thing to understand is that we're trying to optimize for one thing on HN and that's curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
When you use a phrase like "genocidal rhetoric", I assume that you consider certain comments to be wrong and bad. From that perspective your question could be generalized to "what's the best way to respond to wrong and bad comments on this site?" Keeping in mind that "bad" here doesn't just mean the comment is badly written—in internet jargon, it means the commenter is bad.
Curiosity doesn't exclude wrongness or badness—it's interested in it. How did this comment (or person) get so wrong and bad? Could that change? Is there a response that could pull them out of wrongness and badness into rightness and goodness? Why do most of my (<-- I mean any of us, of course) attempts to do this fail so badly? Is there a more effective way to respond? Might there be something interesting here beyond wrongness and badness?
That's the spirit we're trying for on this site, so that's the answer to your question.
If I ask myself what other approaches are possible, there's one obvious option, and that is to crush/destroy/defeat the wrong and bad argument (and person) utterly. This is the desire to kill the other person (if only metaphorically (and maybe not always so metaphorically)), and thus establish rightness and goodness over wrongness and badness.
So the "accepted way" here is to listen to the other and dance with them, rather than killing them (or their position). Dance rather than war, if you like.
Is there a third option? I'm not sure. When I look inside myself, I can find the listen/dance option (or one could say give-and-take), and I can find the kill option. But I'm not sure I can find a third.
---
Edit: reading this the next day, I think the word 'dance' could have trivializing associations (e.g. let's just dance rather than deal with violence and tragedy). I don't mean it that way. I mean something like moving and changing in response to each other. If anyone can do that in response to the other, even just a little, then one's self becomes a place for at least a modicum of change.
As someone who abandoned rightness/wrongness 9+ years ago (except in the idea of alignment with the cosmos), I can say that "genocidal rhetoric" doesn't necessarily imply rightness or wrongness. There exist language patterns that indicate a perspective that, when culturally carried and compounded for years, has the effect of cultivating behaviors that lead to extinguishing a people, whether intentional or not. This is genocidal rhetoric.
As for options as to what to do with it, I find this useful for finding more.
https://thenightgarden.substack.com/p/the-story-state-action...
I'm curious how people think maintaining genocidal rhetoric is aligned with serving life, when it literally serves the destruction of a group.
I'm not blind to the realities of Israel having blocked some aid and the realities of living in a war zone. I'm sure the Palestinians are suffering and I wouldn't want to live in Gaza these days. Israel will and is exerting the maximum possible pressure. However it is not starving the population.
You are blind to the Hamas' control of the narrative coming out of Gaza. You are also blind to the Hamas' ability to impact the situation and to their absolute control of any word coming out of the mouth of a "hospital director" or a "journalist" who are either Hamas or operating under the threat of death, torture, and violence to themselves and their families if they don't say what they're asked to say.
Here's some coverage: https://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-us-humanitarian-envoy-pans-... It's not super favorable for Israel but has some nuance that you're missing.
The article is an interview with: "David Satterfield, who served during early months of war, says dangerous transport routes, looting by desperate Palestinians severely hinder ability to pick up and deliver aid"
... "UN trucks repeatedly looted, including by thousands of desperate Palestinians, unsure when they and their families will receive their next meal."
"UN trucks repeatedly looted, including by thousands of desperate Palestinians, unsure when they and their families will receive their next meal."
"Moreover, looting carried out for purposes of commoditization will also dissipate because the value of assistance in the marketplace will drop due to the rise in supply."
So Palestinians are stealing food from other Palestinians to make a buck.
"Satterfield said “there’s no question” that the terror group has worked to take “political advantage and certainly some physical substantive advantage out of the aid distribution process.”
Hamas operatives have made a point of “flaunting” their presence at aid sites in a message to Palestinians that the group has no intention of ceding its role in the distribution process."
The nuance of all you wrote is missing the context in which it is written:
Israel is a settler-colonial white supremacist occupation and reporting on the "nuance" of how that situation has evolved over 76+ years without acknowledging Israel has no right to exist only serves the genocidal occupation of Palestine. We need to abolish all white supremacy projects, including those from Zionist entities.
Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here. We've had to warn you about this multiple times before.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
What is the officially accepted way to identify genocidal rhetoric on this site?
crawfordcomeaux commented on What is the richest country in 2025? economist.com/graphic-det... · Posted by u/RestlessMind
The article is entirely about income and not at all about wealth. Content was a little surprising given the title, but I wouldn't see the point of a comprehensive wealth analysis given the resource curse you allude to.
The point would be to contextualize income in the exploitation required for it to exist.
crawfordcomeaux commented on What is the richest country in 2025? economist.com/graphic-det... · Posted by u/RestlessMind
This doesn't take into account resources in the ground, otherwise it would need to show how rich the so-called "poor" countries locked into debt slavery and colonized infrastructure/governance the "rich" countries continue to impose on them.
If the measures ignore the sources of wealth discovered and not yet extracted, it doesn't accurately indicate what's happening. The whole story is left untold. Not reporting worth basing economic decisions on, except to hire better economists.
crawfordcomeaux commented on The Chan-Zuckerbergs stopped funding social causes washingtonpost.com/techno... · Posted by u/1vuio0pswjnm7
Sounds like a warped lens.
Perhaps better glasses are in order.
Got a prescription?
Very, very few problems _need_ to be solved. Feeding yourself is a problem that needs to be solved in order for you to continue living. People solve problems for different reasons. If you don't think LLMs are valuable, you can just say that.
1. How to identify humanity's needs on all levels, including cosmic ones...(we're in the Space Age so we need to prepare ourselves for meeting beings from other places)
2. How to meet all of humanity's needs
Pointing this out regularly is probably necessary because the issue isn't why people are choosing what they're doing...it's that our systems actively disincentivize collectibely addressing these two problems in a way that doesn't sacrifice people's wellbeing/lives... and most people don't even think about it like this.