Remix clone Hacker News

Typically i would agree with the harsh tone, but this person is being clear about their position. Perhaps I sympathize since I may also have a habit of being too credulous.

▲ ludsan 2 days ago | parent [-]

Credulity is a fine default for human interaction. It is gift of assumed sincerity.

Deciding at which point that gift was misplaced is a learned skill and one I cannot claim to have expertise in.

I may credulously assume that our poster friend is sincere. However, as I read replies that the poster has made to sincere responses, I observe:

  * a claim of mutual empathy via mutual distrust "I've criticized Musk!" ... "I've been contradicting DOGE on things since they became a thing"

  * a surrender of high-ground via tenuous appeal-to-authority "Bibi says he's not a nazi"

  * a veneer of emotional maturity over others: "we don't have to be so stressed about needing to trust DOGE's changes"

I've seen enough of on-line conversations to understand the "I'm just asking questions" type -- the kind who only grows in power as response after response is parried with "my goodenss, how rude?!" aplomb.

Buffeted yet calm, our poster friend claims the high-ground while having-and-eating cake.

Our poster is in an incredulous superposition of:

"So yeah, I don't trust him." and "I was shocked"

"I don't think they'd renege on it. I'm certainly not naive!"

I've wasted too much time discussing our mutual friend. I should not have done my drive-by, and I apologize to you both for the energy consumption of my this and my previous post. I shrink away cowardly from responding anymore.

I do not apologize for lacking credulity.

	▲	CyrsBel 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		My position is very clear and I maintain it. DOGE should be audited by CAT and CAT should operate alongside DOGE to review all changes. DOGE should also be on a leash, even quarantined, while reviews are ongoing as to ensure sustainable changes and accesses. My interest in having any kind of "superposition" is simply to be impartial and accurate to the greatest degree possible as to get the greatest results possible. That is it. In any case, you got it wrong when you said: > * a veneer of emotional maturity over others: "we don't have to be so stressed about needing to trust DOGE's changes" There is nothing like that at all in my posts. What I was saying is that DOGE should operate with such a level of transparency and controls that would eliminate needing to simply trust DOGE's changes. Tthus the stress that goes along with that level of trust would fade away. > * a surrender of high-ground via tenuous appeal-to-authority "Bibi says he's not a nazi" That is not an appeal to authority. It is saying that the people who are most equipped to answer the question, because it is a matter of their own history and hide, are the ones saying that it warrants overlooking or good faith. By all means, continue that line of investigation on your own if you want. > I should not have done my drive-by I agree! Because it's poor faith and on top of that you're questioning my own consistency and integrity to boot, even though it's clear that in one case X has premium features warranting a credit card...whereas there's no reason at all to blast my bank account details on here... Anyway, to summarize it all...CAT should audit DOGE and DOGE should be on a tighter leash or quarantined if they cannot be trusted to make changes.