I've only ever read this on Hacker News, in the form "Welcome to $current_year!", where $ is the scalar sigil in the Perl programming language, indicating that it's a variable, and should be substituted by the reader as necessary.
OFF: But octonion just made a post, that I (and other people?) can see? I don't understand.
OFF2: I wish for a functionality that could make my own post gray/collapsed, if it is offtopic. I must risk points, and being actually banned (or just don't be offtopic) this way.
edit: I am just asking for some explanation about how things work, e.g. why GP said "you are shadowbanned", and what's happening, really.
I looked through their comment history, I couldn't see anything too controversial around the time this kicked started. Weird, maybe they can ask @dang to see what's up?
FYI, you were shadowbanned four days ago, probably automatically for your multiple flagged-to-death comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33208156. Maybe you should try to appeal to the mods.
Most of his comments in that thread are not flagged, nor even grayed. Most which are grayed or flagged are ones like this:
In response to "How exactly will you be 100% renewable during a cloudy and windless period with solar and wind?" he commented "Trolling is unwelcome here, thank you." Seems like a justified flagging to me; with no supporting argument that comment amounts to nothing more than a bare insult.
Not a justified flagging. It is trolling. People who make that argument about unreliability are at best dishonest. To make that argument either means you know next to nothing about renewable energies other than that wind and sun aren't consistent. Or you are purposefully lying.
It is a form of gaslighting. These kind of arguments have been discussed to death but "renewable energy isn't consistent" is either to understand than it is to refute. It takes pages of text to fully explain this and only a few words to repeat the allegation. Sprinkle in a few claims about nuclear power being the only alternative to global warning (with even less proof) and you can shout down anyone who disagrees.
It only provides a web ui which is inferior to the standalone ui version.
If you want to go that route you might as well use Deluge, which is built on the same libtorrent library, has a proper daemon-client architecture with fully featured native clients for all major platforms.
I found out that's just disk cache. Try launching some memory hungry programs and you'll see the cache released and qBittorrent running at around 150 MB again.
> In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds.
So your focus is on what "camp" someone falls into, not whether their arguments have merit or their statements are factual?
No wonder you think there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia. As long as your "side" controls the narrative, you'll nod your head and clap like a trained seal no matter what lies and "misinformation" they spread.
The talk page, and Quillette article, are proof that Wiki entries needs to contain the discredited sources too, and the properly sourced criticisms of them of course, rather than simply deleting them.
Wiki rules are tools to build better content, not absolutes we must die on. If 90% of readers of an entry find it lacking or untrustworthy because it doesn't mention well-known studies or even fields of endeavor then it's not a useful article.
> despite what a number of skull-measuring right-wingers would like you to believe
Do you believe that acceptance of the theory that genes impact IQ is split along communist/non-communist lines? That communists are less likely than average to believe this? These broad statements and the identities around them are the partisanship behind much of the politically-motivated editing going on in Wiki now.
Quillette articles are rarely proof of more than the ability of deranged conservatives to get nonsense published.
>Do you believe that acceptance of the theory that genes impact IQ is split along communist/non-communist lines?
Maybe. I think the idea that genes impact IQ and that IQ actually usefully measures anything - certainly anything that could be described as 'intelligence' - is probably split that way.
The Quillette article was cited as tautological proof of how "those people" feel about the wiki entry. They don't find it convincing and are explaining the citations they feel it lacks...
The point of Wiki is to educate and that means reaching the uneducated who are going to have those nasty uninformed opinions. Even if I agreed with your assessments of the people involved I'd want to improve them, not crap on them for where they are. If Wiki is only for those who already believe the right things, why even have Wiki?
> split along communist/non-communist lines?
Why would a support for a scientific concept be split across groups by economic philosophy? Is there anything inherently capitalist or communist about these ideas or are these ideas conflated with identities?
> [IQ being] anything that could be described as 'intelligence'
That it's related at all, or that it's a perfect match? Because of course we'll always have subjective views of the definition of intelligence and no one test will satisfy everyone.
> the idea that genes impact IQ and that IQ actually usefully measures anything
Unlike intelligence, IQ is definable, stable, and correlates highly to job performance. (Of course, because the tests resemble many work-skill tasks...)
Why would IQ be the only trait that isn't genetic at all?
I have no desire to see any given racial group maligned, even with "correct" data, but I feel the discussion about genetic traits is limited for fear of this, and that this censoring falls exactly along the lines of the USA's post-slavery racial lines. To me this suggests that this is a you (the USA) problem, not an us (the rest of the anglo-sphere) problem, and that it should be treated with racial sensitivity training and honesty, not with demonization and censorship and quashing research.
There is a robust empirical difference that's seen between races. That quote is about the notion that this difference is inherent. Rather, most scientists think it's largely environmental. They wouldn't have to attribute the difference to environmental factors if there were no actual difference.
So the OP is correct in saying that even if you remove discrimination there would still be differences, because the environmental factors that caused those differences remain.
>There is a robust empirical difference that's seen between races.
There's not an objective/standardized way to even measure intelligence, so you'll forgive me if I treat the claim that there's an empirical difference in intelligence between races with a mountain of skepticism.
The OP said IQ. That's a specific measure that may or may not be related to intelligence. It does have strong correlations with academic and life success though.
Look at the actual research that supposedly leads to the rejection of that idea. There doesn't seem to be any, except for a bunch of unsupported speculation. A notorious example is the Minessota Transracial Adoption Study or something along those lines. They actually found what was clearly an inherent difference according to their experiment's design, then after they got this uncomfortable result, they found another variable they'd forgotten to control for and attributed it to that, without any further evidence. The science in this field is full of fraud because it's dominated by leftists who will be punished by their peers for publishing politically incorrect findings.
