= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Polyhacking - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (603)
People get hurt in all kinds of relationships, because entering in a relationship generally means that you open yourself up to being hurt if things go wrong.
In any case, regardless of the type of relationship, the golden rule is the campsite rule, suitably generalized to all relationships: strive to leave your partner(s) in a better shape than you found them.
I would replace "my partner" with "everyone involved," but other than that, completely agreed.
Fixed to include plural, thanks!
ie. You should dump them as quickly as possible - while there is still a chance that the amazing sex offset the deterioration from aging. (You can stay with them a bit longer if you encourage them to exercize more, eat better and you give them a supply of tretinoin.)
Sarcastic, but I think it can be made into a fair point: You're not always in control of whether someone gets better off or worse off, and is it fair to expect you to be?
No, ironic, facetious or merely silly. Sarcasm is different.
It's not a bad rule, but it has a couple of serious shortcomings.
First, how do you know? You don't see them afterward, almost by definition. Second, if you do make someone worse off, how do you distinguish a permissible accidental harm from impermissible negligence? Third, is this enough? It seems at least plausible that you can exploit someone even while leaving them better off. See "Wrongful Benificence" by Chris Meyers.
I'd really prefer it if people had a policy of warning for PDFs. I have much different thresholds for wanting to click those than other links.
This problem is partially amenable to a technical solution. By whatever means your browser provides, add this CSS stylesheet:
This will not, however, mark links which go to PDFs but have no extension or type hint, but in my experience nearly all PDF URLs have an extension.
I don't know how to make a CSS addition in my browser itself.
Well, this was annoyingly hard to find the complete answer to. (I've only done it for Safari.)
chrome/userContent.cssin your Firefox profile directory; there will be an example file calleduserContent-example.cssthere.User StyleSheets/Custom.cssin your Google Chrome profile directory.Locating the profile directory depends on your operating system as well as browser; instructions for this are much easier to find but if you specify your OS I'll look it up for you.
OSX 10.7. And I don't know where to find my Firefox profile directory.
Note that on 10.7 and later the Library folder is hidden; the easiest way to work around this is to use Go to Folder… (Command-Shift-G) in the Finder and then type/paste a pathname such as
(Do I need to mention that all of this is far messier that, speaking as a designer of software, I approve of, even for a rarely-needed feature?)
I have now done all this (I used the terminal to get there) and added the CSS line but it didn't do anything, PDFs still download without warning when clicked.
The expected result is that PDF links have " [PDF]" at the end of their text, i.e. a warning of the sort someone writing a comment could have inserted. I tested it on the link in the comment you originally replied to.
Troubleshooting items: Have you restarted your browser? Did you save the CSS as plain text, not RTF or other word-processor format? What is the full pathname to where you placed the CSS file?
That I, personally, agree with you seems less significant than that this is the first comment I've seen upvoted to +4 while it was still one of the five most recent comments.
I also note how while karma is supposed to mean "constructive", it usually actually means "agree". People don't just downvote trolls, they seem to downvote anyone they disagree with.
I can tell, because usually I get upvoted... but all my posts criticizing polyamory have negative scores. I didn't turn into a troll overnight.
It is possible that your thinking and communicating on that subject really has sucked compared to other things that you have said.
To generalize that, I've found in the past that posts on subjects I feel very strongly about, or that I might reasonably expect interested observers to feel very strongly about, tend to be noticeably less well received unless I put a lot of effort into cooling my phrasing and shoring up any weak points in the reasoning. This might have a little to do with inferential gaps, but it's probably driven mostly by halo effects and their negative-affect cognates: arguments that I've accepted as part of my worldview are likely to look a lot less good to people that haven't internalized them. Same goes for rhetoric, but moreso.
Some people seem to be able to avoid this, but I don't seem to have the entertaining rant patch installed. If you find your posts on these subjects being downvoted a lot, chances are you don't either.
That makes some sense to me. Polyamory is exceptional because a number of prominent folks on Less Wrong identify as themselves poly, so they're bound to take it personally. And maybe I take it too personally myself, having been burned by a few attempts at poly relationships that went badly.
If so, then we would all be expected to be making worse arguments than usual, and you can get caught in a death spiral of both sides taking it too personally.
Personally I have never upvoted or downvoted any post on lesswrong, ever. Politics is only mindkilling to those who have chips in the game.