Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bena's commentslogin

That's a bit conceited.

Animals have inner lives as well. They have their own thoughts and feelings. And sometimes those feelings are anger and their thought is to kick the shit out of those assholes over there.

Fuck man, my cats occasionally scrap with each other. I know it's not anything they've learned from the people in my house because we don't go full Wrestlemania on each other.


To be fair, you are constructing an entirely hypothetical car scenario where oil filter placement leads to a 5-10% increase in fuel efficiency.

We're already in the land of the fucking ridiculous. Let's have fun with it.


I'm using this hypothetical to illustrate the point that: tradeoffs exist, and that you (we) may not have full insight into the full complexity of the trade space that the engineers were working with.

Putting some random number of hypothetical mpg improvement was clearly a mistake, but I assumed people here would be able to get the point I was trying to make, instead of getting riled up about the relationship (or lack thereof) of oil filters and fuel efficiency.


And he's using his hypothetical to illustrate the point that: even while some benefits may exist, there are other considerations besides one measure of efficiency.

That's the point you're not getting. People get your point. They're just pointing out that sometimes the juice isn't worth the squeeze. And for something that needs to be regularly accessed, it's better for it to be accessible than strictly optimal.

And during the whole debacle, you've demonstrated that you don't have much insight to the trade space at all. And you're so dead set on "not being wrong" here that now you're accusing everyone around you of being riled up. We're chill, dude. We're starting to worry about you.


> there are other considerations besides one measure of efficiency

Bruh that's literally what I was saying? Instead of how efficiently can you replace a filter in an engine, another benefit might exist instead. Said another way, maybe the "juice" gained from redesigning a fuel filter system instead of using an existing one form another car wasn't worth the "squeeze" of cost and development for the company.

Kinda feels like maybe you (the majority of replies to my original message) didn't get the point, and instead took this as some literal suggestion that I think engines need to have filters in certain spots.

The fact that so many people took this as literally as they did, and seemingly chose to ignore the underlying message of "hey maybe consider tradeoffs exist" makes me start to worry about you too.


No, you were saying that accessibility is subservient to efficiency.

And you were explicitly told several times that your hypothetical efficiency just does not exist. So constantly saying, "Yeah, but what if" looks like you're being obstinate for its own sake.

If the majority of people "didn't get your point", consider that maybe you aren't great at getting your point across.


> No, you were saying that accessibility is subservient to efficiency

Where do you believe I said that?

I don't recall saying anywhere that efficiency should be a priority over accessibility. I said "what if" to create a hypothetical to demonstrate that it could be. You know, trying to introduce nuance to a conversation. You can read that as obstinance for its own sake if you want.

My hypothetical not existing doesn't mean that some similar scenario isn't true. That's kind of the point of a hypothetical, it's an imaginary example to demonstrate a point. My suggestion that fuel efficiency could be effected may not be correct, but the efficiency of using a pre-existing design to save on new parts/labor very likely is true.

Again, people choosing to latch onto a hypothetical and tear that down instead of treating it like a tool for illustrating a point like it's intended to be is really odd and related to:

> If the majority of people "didn't get your point", consider that maybe you aren't great at getting your point across.

As I've said in other replies, I've already noted this- a specific mention of a hypothetical 2mpg that seems to really have distracted people lol


Define "modern". I have a 2017 Civic and I've had to replace the battery a couple of times. There's a holding bar that needs to be removed before the battery can be taken out, but other than that the only real problem is the weight of the thing.

The Ford Maverick (2022+) requires removing the air intake to remove the car battery. This is fairly common across many new car models.

In general it looks like these kinds of changes are trying to make it harder for people to do this kind of basic maintenance themselves. Force you to go to the dealer.

> Force you to go to the dealer.

I recommend to never go to the dealer, unless you're going there for a warranty or recall repair. A local repair shop is always the better option. And if you don't know of a trustworthy local shop, take it to the dealer for an estimate, and then you know if the local shops are bullshitting you (they should come in way under dealer prices).


They explain it on the site, the two percentages are independent.

You are 60% non-German and 60% non-Autistic.


I dont want people to think I am German, Autistic or Pedantic but the question posed was ... Am I German or Autistic? not Am I German or Autistic or Non-German or Non-Autistic?

Obviously the title is cheeky as a lot of attributes ascribed to Autistic people are also stereotypes about Germans.

The site is exposing the reality that you can come to the same place from different directions. For example, if you are more "German", your sense of fairness, adherence to rules, regard for punctuality comes from a place of moral obligation. You act in ways you hope others will also act because you believe that if everyone acts that way, we'd all get along better.

However, if you do these things because those are the arbitrary rules set forth and they must be followed because that's the definition of a rule, something you follow, then you're likely Autistic because that kind of rigid thinking that is a hallmark of the condition.


I always looked at the Costco law degree as more of a commentary on Costco/price clubs than of degree mills.

Like Costco sells everything and eventually that includes education.


To be fair, the range of results were from 112 to 136. Just over one standard deviation. Like if you gave those tests again, you'd likely get a slightly different order. Basically, 131 - 136 is kind of a tie.

Now, 5 and 6 are basically locked in. You might see 5 and 6 swap or 5 swap with one of the top 4 to put him in fourth and that person in fifth.

But basically assume they've hit around the middle of their ability.

And yes, the black haired woman did harp on their credentials a lot. But a lot of them did and then there was the casual racism in putting the clean-cut Asian guy first and classism by putting the military guy last.

All-in-all, Jubilee is trash, as always.


The thing about IQ and EQ being on different ends of a spectrum is kind of wrong. Turns out, those people whose minds work more efficiently, do so across the board.

In other words, smarter people are better able to gauge people's emotions as well.


You realize that your anecdote here is itself virtue signaling, right?

Because, I’m sure multiple people here could tell similar stories with the political leanings of the groups involved reversed.


I'm an individual. I can have beliefs.

Corporations, can not. I've been though this twice. If they're doing press releases about how liberal they are, it's probably not a good fit.

Now that I'm old and jaded, I want politics out of my workplace.


Why not make your rate 15% higher than your desired rate?

That way your “discounted” rate is the rate they should have paid and they feel like they got a deal.


She didn’t set herself apart. She was fired. She was forced apart.

That’s the issue here. Is this someone who found their morals or someone who found a stick with which to strike back at those who hurt her?

One of those doesn’t require her to change at all.


Even if she was fired it was an act of courage and a step in the right direction to write a book about it. The company is cancer, no wonder they named it Meta.

Courage guided by righteousness or vengeance? I feel like the motivation is very important here.

I don't particularly think so. What matters is whether the stuff in the book was true, not whether the author is of unassailable character

When one's goal is to look for any reason to downplay facts, questioning the character of the messenger is a standard tactic.

Indeed it is. One can't help but wonder why such a well-known distraction tactic still remains so effective against so many

Could be courage guided by a paycheck. Would not be surprised if the publisher did not reach out directly to suggest writing a book.

How is it courageous? She’s profiting off her book. Seems pretty normal.

Are all these comments written by meta AI bots?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: