You win the thread.

Thou art looking too hard for logical fallacies. "Pretty much universally" is pretty much clear.

So basically... we live in Europe, right?

If you're going to spend money on your blog's design eventually, you should do it sooner rather than later.

Not necessarily. I think it's better to start blogging first and see if you actually enjoy doing it. If you're not having fun with it and you don't find it beneficial, you'll probably stop and have saved yourself some money.

I agree. People will read good content on a poorly designed blog. And if they like your content but hate your design, they--in my sad experience--make it very clear that they'd like you to improve your design. A great design for a blog is kind of like great office space for a startup, it's nice to have but is a misuse of resources if done prematurely.

Yeah, and after they make it clear to you that they hate your design, you should spend the money then, not wait another year. That's what I'm sayin' I learned here.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis not taken all that seriously any more

Apologies for not noting this. Frankly I don't even notice NSFW ads any more.

I'm (usually) on my own so I don't have to explain myself (and I can handle the sight of them ;) ) but they're certainly not the norm for stuff linked from HN - this isn't 4chan - so people won't be expecting them. Pointing them out is the right thing to do.

It's both. You're told you own the item, then suddenly that you don't own it any more.

Oh, that was subtle.

One path to becoming a genius is to be as smart as an adult at age 14, then grow around as much between 14 and 24 as most people do.

That is true, though it's a shame that our brain chemistry, and all that mumbo jumbo, interferes with this.

There is such a thing as personal variance, you know. The fundamental attribution error kicks in when you're trying to judge by single events. If you observe someone for a year, it's a lot more reasonable to expect them to be much the same next year. I would agree with the statement "people are oddly consistent", it's just that it's not so easy to judge from single events, and when we do judge we're likely to miss consistent background causes or consistent reactions, and think in terms of consistent personal attributes.

I'm always pleasantly surprised when I meet someone who actually improves over time in any visible way. I don't go around expecting it.

You always say stuff like this, Eliezer. :-)

I would agree with the statement "people are oddly consistent"

I agree, too, for sufficient values of "consistent". It's just that when this statement is followed by "Cheaters cheat whenever it suits them" it smacks of the FAE.