It does happen more on certain types of articles (those that "everyone" feels they have a valid opinion on) but I have noticed this on pretty much all articles. Sometimes the commenters don't even read other comments that warn people what is not relevant to TFA.
I wouldn’t put too much weight on it
You could maximize your gains by having a custom-crafted reality tailored for each individual but the risks go up by an order of magnitude since it means that you have to put up and maintain more information barriers between the different participants. Also, they will never trust you fully because that requires confirmation from a third party... And you can never create that social confirmation scenario if every person who knows you has a different reality about you in their minds. It's better to forego some of the bigger potential gains of one-person-one-reality and instead go for a lower risk approach with fewer 'shared realities' with significant overlap between themselves and where the discrepancies between the different realities which you crafted is just enough to yield some benefit for you but can also provide you the social support necessary to generate a certain level of authenticity if doubts arise surrounding some of your more creative money-maker narratives.
This is especially problematic when the group which provides the highest yield potential is further from ground truth because ground truth exerts a kind of gravity on all narratives.
The scapegoating threat is too high for my taste. I'm not well versed in scapegoat selection. Being too strongly tied to a narrative puts you in the crosshairs of the big guys if things don't pan out.
The problem with full narrative buy-in is that it's impossible to spin out of it later because you didn't plan ahead. Some positions are easy to spin out of while others are essentially impossible. Full narrative buy-in doesn't play well with position selection IMO.
Any chance you could explain what these are?
One of them many funny quirks of Western "civilization" that we don't talk about in any really serious way. Humans are so weird.
This is more complex than it sounds when you include disparate input sources, calculations that may be recursive (and distributed), etc.
Lie consistently. Lie in the same way. Keep using the same lies. Make an alternative story in your mind and connect all lies together so they are consistent and make sense. And practice a lot. Hard work beats talent.
Whenever somebody is making a lot of hot air about consistency in their chosen SQL database, they tend to conveniently sweep under the rug how common it is to use read-only replicas that are fed by asynchronous replication and caches that are updated when the programmer remembers to / that use consistency-ignoring TTLs.
In the best possible scenario, a DB with snapshot isolation can be as truthful as a strictly serialisable DB.
In both those cases, your truth is at the whim of a programmer committing buggy code.
When I want truth, I write append-only events and fold my view over them. TFA tried to argue a point about eventual-consistency never settling, but that's how the world works. What's the final balance of your bank account?
