The comment you responded to clarified that there are two YouTube algorithms (in reality there are many, but was distinguishing the categories). I was talking about search while the response was talking about discovery (like what you see when you open YouTube. The automatic suggestions)
Why would you assume people that went on to have successful film careers failed high school science? Just because someone doesn't pursue science as a career doesn't mean they received bad grades in it, especially at a high school level.
Without regard to the broader point* in the particular case of Leo, I’d be surprised if he had great k-12 science education. He was a child star already at that point, right? Only so many hours in the day.
Of course, it isn’t a universal rule, see Dolph Lundgren, etc etc.
* I don’t care if the actor delivering an environmentalist message in a movie is actually good at science for the same reason I don’t care if Keanu Reaves knows king fu.
I’m not assuming anything - this is why I used words like “probably” and “mostly” - but let’s just say that I’ve known my share of actors, and I’m willing to take the odds.
It's so funny to me you'd whine about "preaching" and then take such a needlessly judgemental and demonstrably false stance, and then double down and lie when it's pointed out. Truly, a person of science.
C'mon bud, you've got a PhD. You don't really need some uneducated filth to point out how you were disengenous.
But just in case: you made a prejudiced assumption and then boldly claimed you didn't. And you didn't state an opinion, you presented it as (probable) fact. You can couch it with all the adverbs you want, your own snobby disdain shines right through.
I said a movie was bad because I don’t enjoy being lectured about science by actors, many (if not most) of whom have only the most tenuous grasp of science. I wasn’t being “disingenuous”. I meant every word. It’s fine if you think I’m a snob, but I’m not “lying”.
Y’all seem to have a hard time accepting that some people might not like propaganda, even if it is propaganda for things you support.
Your still lying. Saying you didn't say something which you very much did, and then claiming you said something completely different are forms of lying.
It's not the opposition to propaganda folks bristle with, it's the self-important passive aggressive elitism.
> I said a movie was bad because I don’t enjoy being lectured about science by actors, many (if not most) of whom have only the most tenuous grasp of science. I wasn’t being “disingenuous”. I meant every word.
I not only said it, I repeated it, and then re-confirmed that I meant what I originally said.
You asserted without evidence they "probably mostly" failed. Thats a very different statement than your "tenous grasp" claim. If you're going to make sweeping generalizations, don't be a coward about it.
What's worse, you claimed you didn't make any assumptions, which you very clearly did -- that the writers and performers were uneducated, when in fact they are.
Then when presented with evidence, you doubled down and even still continue to gaslight, hence: disengenous.
Uneducated folks can still make correct assertions, and that's the entire point of science. The idea and supporting observations are meant to drive the conversation, not one's laughably judgemental opinion of the person presenting them.
That's a concept with which you, being so educated, are undoubtedly familiar.
"Econ 101" people always seem to ignore that there are higher level economics courses that further expound upon the many complexities, nuances and vagaries of "supply and demand."
Is that really how people view HackerNews? I've always felt the connection to YCombinator to be largely superficial, with the site being mostly for people looking to get news on technology itself, rather than the business thereof.
Given some of the perspectives here, especially with tech fads, absolutely. They are definitely prolific users here who have that feeling that they support or defend certain ideas in tech as they work on their next project in that area.
As well as just some general sentiments you see from browsing here:
- Strongly anti-copyright and seem fine completely abolishing the idea. One that would remove regulations when it comes to selliing ideas.
- Often defends the idea of private marketplaces and their cuts on developers. Which seems odd on the surface. but it makes sense when you consider it is easier to minmax for one monoplistic storefront than develop endpoints to support multiple stores. Why disrupt something you make steady income from as is?
- There's definietly underlying sentiments towards in work-related topics that come from those leading/managing companies. a stronger skew towards employee productivity and a need to aggressively weed out "low performers". A slight skew supporting business decisions like mass layoffs, even suggesting those laid off were low performers or otherwise just freeloading.
little things you catch here and there as you browse a community for years.
Anyone who has been in a YC batch gets a special magic "Orange" name tag on HN that anyone else with an orange name tag can see, and we, the proles, cannot.
This site is an advertisement for YC, and was built primarily for mindshare. "Growth hacker" types that started YC and built HN and spun off Reddit don't build things "for fun" if there is profit to be made.
So what? The source isn't nearly so relevant as the nature of the information presented. It's tedious to see sometimes useful tidbits for possible investigation get dismissed because they're "disreputable".
