PG used to post here but he left because of the negative comments as I remember. A couple of users got banned as well. Twitter allows you to just post and forget without much blow back except for the weird subtweets where people take you out of context. As such successful tweets tend to overgeneralize to avoid nuance or imply that there is nuance but not discuss it. A lot of YC tweeters do this. The problem is we have to take them at their word.
What would be more interesting would be to discuss specific things as evidence for a more general truth.
For example there is a huge criticism of the social sciences in this website (and in general) but none of it is specific criticism of specific hypotheses. (Yes, yes I know people will argue that there are no hypotheses in the social science literature and it is not testable etc... but that is a weak argument and not always true).
To all extents and purposes that are relevant it is, or you can treat it as such. I'm not aware of pg overruling dang on anything, though obviously it is property of YC and there are limits to what dang can do when it comes to risking the site (legal risk, for instance).
PG used to post here but he left because of the negative comments as I remember. A couple of users got banned as well. Twitter allows you to just post and forget without much blow back except for the weird subtweets where people take you out of context. As such successful tweets tend to overgeneralize to avoid nuance or imply that there is nuance but not discuss it. A lot of YC tweeters do this. The problem is we have to take them at their word.
What would be more interesting would be to discuss specific things as evidence for a more general truth.
For example there is a huge criticism of the social sciences in this website (and in general) but none of it is specific criticism of specific hypotheses. (Yes, yes I know people will argue that there are no hypotheses in the social science literature and it is not testable etc... but that is a weak argument and not always true).
In a meritocracy, this would be dang's site.
To all extents and purposes that are relevant it is, or you can treat it as such. I'm not aware of pg overruling dang on anything, though obviously it is property of YC and there are limits to what dang can do when it comes to risking the site (legal risk, for instance).
no i’m not confused, and yes i’m aware where i am
This isn't pg's site, and hasn't been for a long time.