> While it is one use case, it is not all use cases.
Really? What other use cases are there for a military?
> It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like.
In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know.
As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.
> > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like.
> In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims.
It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience".
Unless someone here was with you, they don't know (nor do I) what your personal experience was. Similarly, you don't know everyone else's personal experiences. OTOH, we have these wonderful social sciences which go around and collect data from lots and lots of individuals, draw conclusions and publish them for other people to read and learn.
The data and conclusions might not be representative of your experience, but it's rubbish for you to handwave it away for your individual, subjective experience.
You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for.
> You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack.
Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models.
> We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for.
I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, which is of questionable moderation. Not just on this comment thread but many others. I don't see these warnings anywhere. Again, this points to subjectivity. I searched for subjectivity in moderation on the link you provided and it returned no results.
Please can you also share the algorithms used in moderation for HN?
The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't.
Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). That's a universal bias, same as it always feels like the cops are singling you out for a speeding ticket when lots of other cars were going fast too.
If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation not that we're against you—it's simply that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
> The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't.
Got it. Maybe I will give it a shot and share it. I'm not sure which types of bots you're already using but there's ways to orchestrate consensus networks on opinion dynamics to derive a "threat" level (or whatever metric name you want to call it). And that could be used to do things like auto-cut tickets to inspect threads for guideline violations.
IMO, there was a misunderstanding about the term "you": there is an individual "you" and a collective "you".
> Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves
I don't feel like I'm being singled out, more like I feel like there is inconsistency in moderation. Probably because it's hard and there are limited resources and the bots that you do have have thresholds set super judiciously to avoid false-positive flagging (or not; I don't actually know).
Moderation here is always going to be inconsistent, simply because we don't read everything that gets posted, or even 10% of it - there's far too much. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.
We evidently don't have enough common ground to have a useful discussion. You are making huge, sweeping statements based on nothing. I see no point in further engagement with you.
Do let me know if you want to engage with some scientific research, and/or declassified docs that describe exactly what I'm saying. Happy to share, because science and scientific method.
Really? What other use cases are there for a military?
> It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like.
In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know.
As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.