>but in truth they deal with less knowledge than a subsistence farmer, who has to know a hell of a lot about agronomy.
If they had to then they would. Since they do not, obviously they do not have to. Very few farmers of any sort know much of anything about agriculture other than cargo cult knowledge that is largely misguided or inaccurate.
You just linked to a honing steel that is incorrectly labelled on amazon as a "sharpening steel" (which no, does not exist) by the random vendor who knows nothing about the products they sell. Read the actual item description from wusthof:
"When that time comes that you need to touch up the sharp edge of your Wusthof knife the 10" steel is a good option. The Wusthof 10" inch steel can realign your knife edge quickly and easily. Honing steels are often confused as sharpeners. Your honing steel will realaign your knife edge but will not put a new edge on it. In trying to explain what a honing steel does try to imaging your sharpening steel and your toothbrush. It is a maintaince tool that you use everyday. In the case of your knife this would be maintaining the knifes edge. Now eventually you would need to see your dentist. That would be a sharpener. This would be a more detailed and agressive action and they would actually remove metal from the edge of the knife. Much like a dentist would do to your teeth. Now to maintain healthy teeth you brush everyday. To maintain a sharp knife you should steel your knife everyday. And remember only go to the Dentist(sharpener) once or twice a year."
> The difference between honing and sharpening your knife depends on whether your knife needs regular maintenance or if you need to reset a dull edge. A honing steel will re-align the microscopic teeth and can be used frequently- even after each use. A sharpening steel will actually take a small amount of steel off the blade, creating a new edge.
So although the previously-linked one might not be a sharpening steel, they do actually exist. Further down the page:
> The difference between a diamond steel or ceramic steel and honing steel, is that a diamond steel and ceramic steel will actually grind away material from the knife, allowing it to reset the edge.
I'd appreciate it if people wouldn't rush to the conclusion that we do these things for partisan reasons. It takes self-discipline to suspend your political reflexes and consider other explanations, but that's a necessary habit to get into if we're to have thoughtful discourse here.
In the above case, there was no ideal place to prune the off-topic subthread. 12945175 started the political digression for sure, but seemed clearly to be an offhand misstep in an otherwise good-faith conversation. That's not really a problem on HN. The problem is when other users (you, in this case) pounce and turn the politics knobs to 11. Then we get a flamewar. Had it been possible to snip the thread at the original off-topic aside, we'd have done that, but obviously we can't edit users' comments that way.
While I have you, I need to ask you to change how you use HN. You've been violating the site's guidelines by using it primarily to conduct political battles. That's an abuse, and we ban accounts that do it. HN exists to gratify intellectual curiosity. Using it to bash political foes damages that.
This isn't because we favor one political position over another. We're gardeners. When gangs show up to rumble and trample the garden, it doesn't matter what colors they're wearing.
>You've been violating the site's guidelines by using it primarily to conduct political battles
What? I read what I find interesting, and respond if I have something to say. Your assessment of my use of the site makes it very clear that you are not succeeding in "suspend(ing) your political reflexes and consider(ing) other explanations".
...Because if you're in USNE, you probably felt genuinely ill after hearing the nomination. Missouri, as well as the rest of the US Midwest, is famously comically red.
So if you're in a discussion about cultural differences between USNE and USMW, that's an entirely valid point.
Also, if you're in a red state, you might feel the need to tell people you didn't vote for Trump, because you want to make sure that you'll get flamed by the right people. If you feel this way, it's okay.
>Because if you're in USNE, you probably felt genuinely ill after hearing the nomination
Which is both a foolish assumption and completely off-topic and irrelevant. Even in the NE, millions of people voted for Trump. And millions more didn't vote for him, but are not so blinded by their little bubble of hate that they "felt genuinely ill" over their preferred candidate losing an election.
>So if you're in a discussion about cultural differences between USNE and USMW, that's an entirely valid point.
Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east. I think it's appropriate to segway into another topic that way.
If it's the sarcasm you find inappropriate, I respectfully disagree. If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain. I find it all very stressful, and humor is an outlet for that stress.
If it's the particular apology you find inappropriate, that was not a joke. As a progressive in the midwest, I did not do enough to campaign to the large group of Trump-voters in my immediate family, friend group and neighborhood.
FYI, "segue" is the word you're looking for. A "segway" is one of those Dean Kamen scooters. Apologies if raising that is a jerk thing to do, but if I were on the other end I'd appreciate it. I can't tell you how long I went spelling "carotid" wrong, despite being aware of the printed word (I thought that one was pronounced differently, oddly enough).
The only people Trump has promised to deport are those here illegally, so I'm assuming that the friends you mention are illegal immigrants, whose mere presence in the country is a crime. Is it so much to ask visitors to our country to follow our laws?
I've traveled to a lot of countries. Every country I visit, I read and follow the laws of the country, including visa and immigration rules. Many of these laws I disagree with it find morally repugnant. Forgive me if I don't cry any tears for your deported criminal friends.
The friends I'm mentioning are a married homosexual couple; if the federal gov't stops recognizing their marriage, the non-citizen wife would lose grounds for residency.
I still want to address this though:
> Is it so much to ask visitors to our country to follow our laws?
I think this is a very strange thing to say. Obviously, if someone intentionally violates visas to stay here illegally, deportation is appropriate - the only main stream politicians who disagree with this are straw men invented by the Republican party.
What the immediate discussion is actually about is two scenarios:
One; you illegally enter the country with your young child. Your kid grows up in US preschool, elementary school, high school. She speaks English as her native language, hasn't been to Mexico since you left 25 years ago and legally works at Walmart under DACA.
Trump has said he wants to revoke DACA and deport the kid. I believe, like most on the left, that your kid should not be held responsible for you breaking the law, and should be given legal means to work and a path to attain citizenship.
Two; you illegally enter the country with your spouse. A year or so later you have a child born on US soil, that child gets a US birth certificate and becomes a US citizen.
As the law currently stands, you can now be deported, and your 2-year old would become a ward of the state, with the usual probabilities of success of those programs. There is a proposal to allow you to stay in the country to raise the kid, DAPA. Trump has said he will strike that down.
Eg: This is not about you breaking the law; it's about whether your children can be held accountable for it.
>
As the law currently stands, you can now be deported, and your 2-year old would become a ward of the state, with the usual probabilities of success of those programs. There is a proposal to allow you to stay in the country to raise the kid, DAPA. Trump has said he will strike that down.
>Eg: This is not about you breaking the law; it's about whether your children can be held accountable for it.
Out of interest, would you feel differently if the parents involved were convicted of a non-immigration crime and were sent to prison instead of being deported?
To be clear: I'm not saying I support DAPA, I'm saying that and DACA are the two immediate scenarios that were on the table for the election.
As I noted in my comment, I do support DACA.
For exactly the reason you state above, I'm not sure how I feel about DAPA: The same moral problem (of removing a parent from a childs life) exists in any scenario where a parent commits a jail or deportation-eligible non-violent crime.
Should there be a punishment for overstaying a visa? What should it be?
I think the answer may depend on the type of visa, the length of overstay, and perhaps some other factors, but in the majority of cases, I would expect the answer to be deportation, which would necessitate an arrest and holding. Whether that's called a criminal offense or civil offense is a distinction without a difference.
>Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east
The subject is entirely irrelevant. You just bring it up to virtue signal, despite the fact that even in your best case scenario, 30% of the people you are assuming would want an apology are people who voted for Trump.
>If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain.
Are you sure about that? He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it, and the latest news about deportations is that he wants to deport people who have criminal records. Personally, I'm wondering why people who aren't legal immigrants or residents, and who have committed crimes (beyond speeding tickets...) are still here and haven't been deported yet. Who's going to moan about that? He's also making noises about figuring out who the "terrific people" are and keeping them here. Obviously, a lot of stuff he's said was said to appeal to angry voters, and isn't necessarily what he's going to do in office; I expect he's going to go back on a lot of his promises, but in a way that he can claim he didn't (by simply not going as far as implied; then he'll claim he didn't "mean that literally" or "didn't fully articulate the policy" or something like that). Call me crazy or overly-optimistic, but I'm thinking now that he's going to water a lot of stuff down, in an attempt to keep his popularity numbers very high, while still getting some things done that he thought needed to be done.
>As a progressive in the midwest, I did not do enough to campaign to the large group of Trump-voters in my immediate family, friend group and neighborhood.
There was absolutely nothing you could have done to change the course of the election, unless you campaigned a lot to get more people to the polls in the Dem primary to vote for Bernie. Once Hillary was anointed, it was all over: too many voters simply were not going to vote for her, no matter what. Just look at the turnout numbers: about 4-5 million fewer people voted this year than in 2008 when Obama was elected, even though there's more eligible voters 8 years later (greater population). A lot of people simply hated Hillary and voted for Trump out of spite, many voted 3rd party (though many of those votes were angry Republicans), but tons of people simply didn't vote. The DNC has only itself to blame for this, so if you're mad about that, I suggest you dedicate your campaigning efforts to reforming the DNC.
I'm not, rationally anyway, worried about mass deportation of illegal aliens - there are constitutional measures in place to prevent those, like illegal search and seizure, that a conservative court will uphold. My specific concern with deportations is that congress will pass a bill where the federal government no longer recognizes states rights to marry homosexual couples, and that a more conservative supreme court will uphold it.
That would remove grounds for residency for the wife of a very good friend of mine, since the USCIS uses the federal gov'ts recognition of marriage for visa proceedings, forcing them apart. I expect there are many thousands like them.
On the overall gist of what you're saying though - I hope you are right.
i think the 60 minutes interview tonight is going to calm a lot of nerves.
personally i think the trump presidency will be shocking in how normal it is. people are just completely worked up over his campaign persona which is understandable.
what people forget sometimes is that we have a political system in place designed to prevent dictatorships, exactly the kind of thing people on the left are concerned about with trump (and people on the right were equally concerned about with obama).
You may be right, but "Don't be worried that the president has promised to do horrible, horrible things--he was probably just lying to make racists happy, and anyway he changes his mind at the drop of a hat!" is not exactly encouraging.
>He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it
He said that over 6 months ago, that's not backtracking.
>unless you campaigned a lot to get more people to the polls in the Dem primary to vote for Bernie.
That would not have changed anything. There was no primary election, it was rigged. Perhaps try reading those leaked emails the media was telling you not to read.
It does add to the comment. It hopefully encourages people to actually read the article. People can not contribute to a discussion constructively if they do not read the subject of the discussion.
> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
I know it is in the guidelines. I am saying that I disagree with that guideline as it does not accomplish the goal the guidelines are intended to accomplish.
Twitter is 100% opposed to free speech, and have stated policy that they censor views they do not like. There is nothing there to save for the sake of free speech. If you want some form of "social media" with free speech, you'll have to make it (and make it popular).
I don't think it is either. But the post is under the misconception that twitter should be saved because it offers a free speech alternative to the other social media outlets.
This is true, they've censored Milo Yainnapolis (gay jewish conservative for Trump), Azealia Banks (female rapper who insulted middle easterners), Blaire White (transgender anti-islamic trans-woman).
I know this is going to sound snarky, but I really am genuinely asking: why? They have a history of very blatantly pushing their political agenda, most people seem to acknowledge that NPR is pretty left leaning. This doesn't seem out of place for them at all.
>the cost for rejecting a good applicant is 4-5 hours of my teams time while they interview someone else
The cost seems much higher to me. I have to interview dozens of people to find a single good applicant. Rejecting one good applicant costs me dozens of interviews, not one.
That makes absolutely no sense. By definition, giving up is failure. So the options are "100% chance of failure" vs "less than 100% chance of failure", and you think they are more likely to pick "100% chance of failure" because failure is scary?
Obviously it doesn't make sense rationally (you miss 100% of the shots you don't take and all that), but it's emotionally very powerful. It's much easier to emotionally justify giving up (I'm not really interested in switching jobs/getting in to tech/etc.) than it is to face the prospect of being rejected many times.
You are describing the wrong group of people. The "emotionally justify giving up" you describe is precisely what we observe with the group of people who are not considered failures for doing so: women. For men, that is failure. That is not easy to justify emotionally, it is the very thing they are trying to avoid in the first place. The emotional toll of giving up is the same as the emotional toll of trying and failing: you are a loser and not a real man, you have no worth or value. This is why they try again, because it gives them another chance to succeed, and demonstrate their value and worth.
Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion, or is it just your theories on what human nature?
If we want to trade opinions and anecdotes, I personally know plenty of "real men" who have justified giving up on different goals to avoid the pain of continued failure. Heck, I'll admit to having done it myself: many years ago I thought I might want to work in finance but after applying to a few banks and never hearing back I "decided" that it's not really for me when in reality I was just avoiding the pain of further rejection.
I realize this sounds confrontational, but I really do want to know where you're coming from that men don't give up on things due to fear of failure. In my personal and professional lives, I see it all the time.
The very article we're discussing? Remember, it shows 7 times as many women give up as men do.
A generalization is not contradicted by one example to the contrary, it would need a majority of examples to the contrary. Obviously some men do give up. But only 1/7th as many as with women. I am simply supporting the explanation someone else offered: that this is because women have inherent value and men's value is purely based on their current level of success. So men have an additional strong incentive to not give up. And when they do give up, it is often just to pursue another avenue where they feel success is more likely, rather than just giving up altogether.
All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men. That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement.
I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them (fewer peers and role models, less experience, etc.) so any evidence they get confirming that hypothesis is more likely to push them into giving up.
We could, in fact, have both things happening simultaneously: some men giving up to protect their ego, but even more women giving up because they think it's not for them.
>All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men
Yes, that's the point.
>That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement.
Indeed, that's what we're offering a potential explanation for.
>I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them
Then do so. Saying "I could make a bunch of other arguments but won't because I know they are contradicted by evidence" is not compelling. In fact, I find it inherently dishonest, in that you are trying to rely on the assumption that any other random explanation you could put forth is just as good, but you won't put them forth because then they would be demonstrated to not be just as good.
Sorry, I should have been clear: I do believe that my explanation (women quit more because they have a stronger prior of tech not being for them) is much stronger and more likely than yours. At the very least, its assumptions are backed by basic evidence (that there are fewer women in tech to look up to as role models).
Except they are more likely to give up in other fields too. Even fields with lots of women in them. So no, your assumption is not backed by basic evidence.
You miss an important aspect. You won't succeed in 100% cases you don't take
an action, but you also don't fail due to your lack of skills in 100% cases
you don't take an action. You can't be blamed for failing if you didn't even
try. You can only be blamed for not succeeding.
No, that's not how it works, which is the point. As they said, men's value is judged on their current success. Not trying makes you just as valueless as trying and failing, it is the exact same outcome.
If they had to then they would. Since they do not, obviously they do not have to. Very few farmers of any sort know much of anything about agriculture other than cargo cult knowledge that is largely misguided or inaccurate.