AliAdams

My greatest problem with twitter is that those whose who have something worth saying tend to talk an awful lot less than those with nothing to say.

I want twitter to be a feed of thoughts an opinions from people I respect, or important updates from companies I'm interested in.

I see a secondary value from twitter by people contributing to a conversation around an event, be that a sports game, a site outage, a traffic jam or an unfolding natural disaster.

Filtering out / systemically discouragingly a lot of the countless low-value/self promotional posts alongside a better hashtag (channel) view would be a great start.

The underpinning logic seems false.

To extend the analogy of the house on a slope, if you don't tell the developer you need a house designed to be built on a slope, that is a problem with the spec provided to the developer.

Although it can at times be more efficient for a dev to have sysadmin experience, making blanket statements requiring all developers to come with such a background is just sensationalism.

My reading of this is that this doesn't look like it will be a long term trend if that helps draw any comfort from the report.

The author's concluded cause is that it stems from an explosion of prescription painkiller use in the 90s/0s which was then cut down by tougher state and federal restrictions. Those people who gained a dependency during that time had to switch to illicit means once the legal sources became restricted.

With the tougher restrictions in place now, hopefully stopping the system from being fed with more users, it sounds like there will be a peak as the affected population escapes from (or succumbs to) their dependency.

Still a tragedy, but thankfully one with an apparent ceiling.

I thought the drop-off points for large buildings could be a very reasonable justification for extending the tracking window for a few minutes on either side of the drive.

I understand that this could fall into 'data necessary to provide a better service' as opposed to simply providing the service as-is, but it seems like drop-off point locations are quite fundamental.

> Northern Ireland should just pull out of the UK already and the whole island can return to being Ireland, and solve the problem with land borders.

This idea wouldn't be as simple as it sounds if you account for the sociopolitical context. Today actually is a perfectly timed example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth#Controversies_and_...

If I'm reading this correctly, a keylogger or screen reader on each device would achieve the same result which wouldn't be as much 'reading encrypted messages' as it would be 'reading unencrypted information on a compromised device'.

Anyone else a little fed up with the "Hey, I'm the CEO of the company emailing you! This message is TOTALLY not automated." style of onboarding emails?

... it was either that title or something more catchy like "Valentine's Day is broken" ... or "The 1 secret that corporations don't want you to know about love".

I already regret my decision.

I worry that there might be difficulties leaning over and picking things up without the chair moving.

Imagine dropping something and instinctively leaning over to catch / retrieve it.

I'm interested in reading this but it isn't designed for mobile screens.

Who needs that, amiright?

I know that you must be sick writing that response, and I'm sure I'm missing the complexity somewhere, but it's been put off for years now.

Maybe the conflict is that you want to do everything in a big step; making vote buttons etc more accessible, but there are some quick changes (I mean maybe 2 lines added to the style sheet which surely is one file?) that would make a vast improvement at least to our ability to use HN on our phones.

If you guys are lacking time, I'm sure that there are some companies out there who would love the kudos of some pro bono work.

The main selling point for me is the potential speed of improvement. Young or not, Atom's well publicised and open sourced nature is much more likely to overtake Sublime in the long term.

Would be interesting to see if it is anything to do with what part of the world is posting at a certain time.

This is quite an old article and I don't think I've seen Sublime updated since then.

Could Atom have moved into the lead?

It seems that having most of the cardio guys away at the conferences means there are less invasive procedures.

I would guess that what is scewing the result though is that the invasive procedures carry short term risk for a long term health benefit. The study only sees the decrease in short term risk (less invasive procedures) but is blind to the long term consequences of not doing the procedure.

This is a bit promotional given the last answer (being the company who made the quiz). Any mods agree?

Exactly what I was looking for - thanks slifty!

I'm feeling a bit ignorant - could someone give a bit of background about bash.org and its history?

A more explanatory tweet (if that isn't an oxymoron) from the author: https://twitter.com/feross/status/510443904152653824

There are at least two holes in your reasoning.

1) Dangerous driving is not always an active choice

2) Even if (1) was true, it is incorrect to assert that the entirety of the danger to cyclists on the road is dangerous drivers

It may be that you were aware that this was the case and your phrasing was simply an attempt (consciously or unconsciously) at being emotive, but it made your statement incorrect to be so definitive.

I completely agree that different roads carry different risks - I think cycling around a city centre is completely different than cycling on a winding country road - but indiscriminate of the magnitude, I think it is undeniable to say that there is a risk.

Causes of accidents have such a diverse and complex range of causes, I think it is not right to make as clear-cut an argument 'if everyone drove safely there would be no accidents'.

In my mind it is much safer to consider the road as a complex system with relatively predictable probability of injury (which in its function contains the risk of meeting an unsafe driver, but is not limited to that). I realise on a case-by-case level there is a definitive split of blame and I'm not attempting to isolate drivers from any blame, but simply from the cyclist's view all I'm asking you to accept is the following:

1) a risk of injury for cyclists originates from the 'system' of traffic on a road

2) someone who enters willingly into a situation, aware that doing so carries a risk (eg climbing a ladder) must accept some (not necessarily all) responsibility in that decision if the risk becomes realised.

Don't put words into my mouth.

I do not claim that driving is a right, but I do think it is reasonable to say that driving is significantly more important to a country's economic activity, signalled by the amount of investment in road infrastructure in, I would venture, every developed country.

I don't think it is a leap to say that roads are built mainly for motor vehicles and rarely solely for bikes and by extension a bike has less right to a road than a car does.

Humans driving at the legal speed limit are dangerous by their nature. We arent perfect and dont see everything - the likelihood of an accident is simply a matter of probability.

I don't think it is any stretch of reasoning to say that choosing to be close to and often in the path of people driving at legal speed in itself carries risk, indiscriminate of how good and conscientious the driver is.

The reason that rape is not a comparable example is that the person committing the crime is doing so actively.

Why do you think it is unreasonable of me to say that someone who puts themselves in a risky position is by definition partly to blame?

If someone tightrope-walked over Niagara and fell in I would certainly blame the victim.

Those patches of asphalt wouldn't be there if they didn't provide an economic benefit. If we made a law tomorrow that all vehicles couldn't exceed 20mph they would be safer but lose their effectiveness and decrease their benefit. Once that cost benefit balance goes too far you have no patches of asphalt.

Disagreement with a reasonable comment shouldn't be a valid reason for a downvote.

Roads are dangerous by their nature and bicycles are unpredictable and unprotected modes of transport to use. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists, particularly on roads which aren't designed to accommodate them safely.

Choosing to cycle subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get injured, not mention the risks they pose to drivers by causing traffic to change speed and be forced to overtake.

I understand cycling where it is safe to but am not convinced cycling on major roads is worth it.

Surely this is more to do with 'getting views' than anything else. To imply that there is a deeper motivation like ASMR etc might be taking it a little too far for the majority of cases.

My guess would be it is just a very easy, non-thinking way of creating content and gaining attention.

I'm not sure where the data is coming from but I'm not convinced Bangkok is worthy of 5/5 stars for safety at the moment.

It is surprising how few of the projects have actually monetisable products not aimed at the developer niche.