> Why would you target something as shitty as markdown if you have a specialized editor?
Your at-rest format allows you to use any tool to edit it.
The specialized editor becomes a preferred tool, but not the only tool nor the most important one. Markdown and it's ecosystem came before the editor.
Why does reddit end up deleting so many of the threads that end up receiving any attention? It's so hard to follow anything now when you go to the site and all there is is [removed]
Because it was obviously a creative writing exercise. I left another comment showing the contradictions in the post. The facts provided were self-contradicting and the story was full of the usual tells for creative writing posts.
It was also oddly focused on email access instead of the obvious legal problems that would come from having your account flagged for CSAM. It’s like what someone would write if they were trying to imagine a story about getting locked out of their email but didn’t realize that their CSAM and child endangerment plot point would trigger much bigger legal concerns and consequences
You identify two inconsistencies, neither of which appear to actually be inconsistent. (One is just the observation that multiple accounts were banned, which is not actually an inconsistency? Just something you don't find likely?)
It's possible that this is real, it's possible it's made up, but I'm not seeing much more evidence in your armchair scepticism than in the asserted facts. Last week everyone on HN was telling me that social media must immediately be regulated because it's 'directionally correct' to assert that teenagers are suffering, but this week we are to disbelieve that Google would ever arbitrarily close accounts, something it firmly asserts it has every right to do?
> (One is just the observation that multiple accounts were banned, which is not actually an inconsistency? Just something you don't find likely?)
I think you misunderstood. In one post they said all accounts were banned including their recovery accounts. They also said they were forced to create a new account on a different service just to have email.
In another comment they said Google sent them an email saying their accounts were banned for “child protection”. This supposedly occurred after the son admitted what he had done, which was a detail that supposedly occurred much later in the process.
Where did they receive that message if all of their email accounts were banned?
These Reddit stories always get some people invested in the story before the inconsistencies show up. You have to read them with some skepticism. You can do enough mental gymnastics to convince yourself that all of the Reddit posts are true and accurate if you try hard enough.
The story as OP tells it is that they appealed the ban, and the ban was upheld. Logically, they appealed the ban from an email address they had access to. I don't know how you get from 'all of their Google accounts were banned' to 'they had no possible way to send and receive email whatsoever'.
> These Reddit stories always get some people invested in the story before the inconsistencies show up. You have to read them with some skepticism. You can do enough mental gymnastics to convince yourself that all of the Reddit posts are true and accurate if you try hard enough.
I get the feeling you've concluded that the OP's claims are unlikely and are now rationalising that conclusion by trying to construct some arguments to that effect, but I find the specific arguments you're giving to be fairly weak. That doesn't speak to the veracity of the original story, it just makes your attempted debunking unconvincing.
The mods of that subreddit appear to have come to the same conclusion.
If you go into Reddit believing all of the posts by default and forgiving inconsistencies you’re going to be duped by a lot of fake stories.
I think it’s interesting that someone posted a “my account just got busted for accidental CSAM” and nobody is concerned about the impending law enforcement consequences? Only about email access? If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process. They get escalated to law enforcement.
> If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process
There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts, and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience. If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes.
The thing is, even if you do turn out to be right - which is entirely possible - there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it. The former is good science, the latter is high school debating. The latter is very easy to spot, and that's why I find your argument unconvincing. It would have been possible to make a much more convincing one, but it would have required a humbler approach.
> There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts,
I was quoting the actual Reddit post. You were theorizing about recovery emails and other things that were contradicts by the Reddit post.
> and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience.
I do have experience in dealing with account policies for a product that hosted user data and some of the details that go into referring cases to law enforcement. Again, you are the one theorizing to support your story and getting it wrong.
That said, you don’t need to have experience to know that child endangerment cases get referred to law enforcement. This is common sense
> If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me
If I’m being honest, this sounds like you’re so resistant to backing down that you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing.
It’s pretty clear that you are determined to believe this story is true even after that subreddit’s mods caught on and others here have realized the problems with the story. If you’re determined to believe it then you don’t need to start inventing theories about me personally.
> there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it. The former is good science, the latter is high school debating. The latter is very easy to spot, and that's why I find your argument unconvincing. It would have been possible to make a much more convincing one.
I followed the clues in the original post and made a logical case based on them.
All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong.
If you’re just trying to attack my construction of the argument for not being convincing enough to you, that seems more like a you problem at this point. I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything if you’re just going to go with this silly “you sound like a child because I didn’t understand your argument the first time” attempt to rebut.
> you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing.
I think it's pretty clear that I tried to phrase it as kindly as I possibly could. Not intended as an insult in the slightest, merely a purely subjective observation. You're welcome to disagree, even if you do seem very resistant to extending anyone else the same courtesy?
> All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong.
I don't think I've moved the goalposts once. We're still on the original two claimed inconsistencies, neither of which I find inconsistent.
You're framing this discussion as though it were me that were hellbent on attacking you (for some reason?). I would respectfully suggest that it seems to be you that is irrationally upset over someone not agreeing with you.
> I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything
Fwiw, you might want to look into "non violent communication" (which is unfortunately named, because people always think they know what it's about, while not actually understanding it whatsoever)
As an uninvolved reader in this thread, your phrasing was definitely done in a way that caused this response from him.
Not at all trying to be mean, and I'm fully aware that this comment I'm writing is also (knowingly) using phrasing which the previously mentioned NVC cautious from, but I only consider it something to be aware of - to understand interactions vs something to adhere to stringently.
The problem with this approach is that it implies that I am responsible for how my interlocutor reacts, something I do not and cannot control. (Nor do I feel any need to.) It also presumes the interlocutor is acting entirely in good faith and is interested in reaching consensus, which is not always the case.
Sometimes people respond negatively because of tone and phrasing, but sometimes their response really is about the underlying substantive content of what is being said, no matter how gently. Conversely, at other times, their primary concern may be one of 'face', and the importance of being perceived as 'winning' an exchange, the substance of they may not actually care about at all. I agree with you that thoughtful phrasing is a potent tool, but its power is not unlimited and it cannot fully bridge every gap.
I would venture to suggest that I phrased things about as kindly as I could, in the broader context of an interlocutor who was already treating the discussion as a zero-sum contest. (Note their read of the exchange as my "desperately" wanting to "discredit" them, when I was merely disagreeing.)
> If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes.
That is unmistakably an insult, even if you say it's not.
As another bystrander: your phrasing and overall participation in this thread was bad. Sorry, but you gotta learn how to take criticism; now it sounds like you just dismiss everything.
Idk, I was kinda expecting to be downvoted to oblivion, but these were surprisingly upvoted posts (with the post noting that the other fellow comes off as young being more upvoted than the others). So it seems like there's some support.
Not that I see why that matters? The popularity of an opinion is a very poor proxy for its veracity. Not everything in life is about optics. (One's public image being of especial concern to the young, I might playfully add. :) )
If I seem disagreeable, it's because I'm quite literally disagreeing. You're telling me I'd seem less disagreeable by not disagreeing. Cool? Noted? Obviously? This little pile on strikes me as a fairly hamfisted attempt at peer pressure. It's a bet that I care so much about the social approval of a bunch of anonymous usernames, that I would pretend to have changed my opinion so you can all feel vindicated and we can all feign harmony. It's a very bad bet.
> there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it.
> The latter is very easy to spot
Well, you know, that's some premium grade irony sitting right there.
> The mods of that subreddit appear to have come to the same conclusion.
Well, if someone whose main credential is "doesn't have a job and hence can moderate reddit full time" thinks it's true, it must be so.
> I think it’s interesting that someone posted a “my account just got busted for accidental CSAM” and nobody is concerned about the impending law enforcement consequences?
Because the law has due process? He didn't do anything wrong legally, and while his son may have, almost certainly nothing that will lead to significant consequences (at most an officer visiting and saying "don't do that").
> If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement
It probably was, and law enforcement probably put it on the big pile of "shit we don't have the resources to bother with". People are sending csam everywhere every day, much of it gets detected and turned into an automated report, a minority of that leads to an investigation. This probably will be an instance where it isn't.
> because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process. They get escalated to law enforcement.
They get... both? Obviously? They get escalated to law enforcement, AND the account gets banned. Then you can appeal that ban, and whoever handles the appeal will look at the ban reason and say "sorry, it's sticking".
If I was referred to law enforcement for any internet related offense in the UK, especially child abuse and CSAM, I wouldn’t brush it off as no big deal.
> The UK police intervene for even small possible internet offenses.
They obviously don't have the resources to do that.
> There was a story last year where someone was arrested because they posted a photo of them doing some fully legal shotgun shooting while on vacation out of the countr:
You only read reports about the things they do investigate, not the things they don't. There were probably myriad videos of shotgun usage posted last year, but only one arrest. The same would apply to almost any internet crime.
> If I was referred to law enforcement for any internet related offense in the UK, especially child abuse and CSAM, I wouldn’t brush it off as no big deal.
You would, like the OP, wait for them to show up at your door and attempt to explain it away then. Especially if it was, in fact, no big deal.
The now-deleted post was supposedly asking for legal advice to get their account open again.
It’s interesting to see how many HN comments it spawned believing the story, even after others pointed out all of the problems with it and signs that it was fiction.
I randomly found that post on the top page of Google just searching for "Gemini Live" interestingly enough. Does it mean the post was deleted and then restored? Trying to make sense of this whole thread which is arguably more confusing than the Reddit one.
I'm pretty sure it's based off of the configuration in the green gear in the top right of the iframe. You can inspect the ways it's calculated from karma, comments, etc etc
If you look at the config it's based on karma, comments, submission rate, comment rate (optional), and account age (that is, if you trust it actually uses the config how it says)
There are some high karma accounts which make a great contribution, and others which ... don't. I'm doubtful whether karma or account age has a significant signal beyond anti-spam.
But it would be useful to know if I had up/down voted them significantly in the past.
The only thing karma reliably indicates is participation over time, the signal is too noisy for anything else. If anything high karma should be a red flag. The very best contributors here rarely comment because they have better things to do. It shows an 8/8 score for me and I doubt anyone would consider me a top tier high quality contributor.
A plugin like HN Comments Owl would be more useful IMHO.
As if to demonstrate my point, two high karma accounts have down voted my suggestion that karma is meaningful. Naturally they are too craven to enter the field.
Every item that had 2 or 4 items in the group seemingly was actually only 1 item. And would jump around the map when you zoomed in. Some were just... In the middle of the city? Not particularly identifying any structure, at least around me.
Choosing a pay band based on performance and setting the pay bands as low as they can losing all their employees are orthogonal.
Suppose you are an employer and you have 5 junior engineers. You wish to promote one to senior engineer, which includes a move to a higher pay band. How do you decide which one gets the promotion?
Most companies are going to decide which one to promote at least partly based on performance data. Do they consistently finish things on time? What is the defect rate in their work? Do they work well with others? Do they need a lot of help compared to their peers or are the who their peers turn to when the peers need help? Does their work show skill above what would normally be found in junior engineer work?
From what has been quoted by or about the objects that one representative had it is that he thinks the bill has been written too broadly and could be construed as prohibiting using job performance data like that in deciding promotions.
Do we get a choice? I did not ever explicitly enable it yet GitHub's web UI by default uses copilot to autofill my web-based edit commit messages. It also shows up on the home screen by default now.
I'm pretty sure if you use the site you're using GitHub Copilot in some way, so your question becomes irrelevant.
How smooth are your experiences with the system? I've dealt with only one other government system like this and it was impenetrable, gave up after 6 months of calling, never receiving the benefit. I'm unsure how someone can experience a system that has no thought to their well-being and then _not_ find gratification in the small person winning.
I've never received something other than what I've ordered. At worst the documentation is scant or missing entirely. Specifically with respect to motherboards, most of the aliexpress specials I've interacted with have had completely unlocked BIOSes. Which are easy to get yourself into trouble with, but kind of nice to have when you need them.
I just migrated to Jellyfin and cancelled my Spotify subscription just last week (https://cobertos.com/blog/post/finally-cancelling-my-spotify). Paying off even more than I predicted. So sick of everything getting in the way of just listening to my music.
Your at-rest format allows you to use any tool to edit it. The specialized editor becomes a preferred tool, but not the only tool nor the most important one. Markdown and it's ecosystem came before the editor.
reply