ArchReaper

>The one year we turned a profit, we celebrated with a pizza party that pushed us back into the red.

Literally the 3rd line of the article.

Why should anyone care? I don't see anything technically novel or interesting in this.

Edit: I'm not disparaging this, I'm asking a question...

Does not work in IE, Firefox, or Chrome. Fuck you, too, Apple.

What service do you use? 5/mo is really cheap for 10+sites/apps

Non-paywall link?

Our legal system is a giant pile of shit, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either woefully misinformed or trying to line their own interests.

Any company that expects more than 40 hours a week should be automatically disqualified from picking 'work life balance' imo.

Maybe my viewpoint is too 'elitist' or something, but I have a hard time taking this seriously when one of the chief complaints of Typescript is that it is too "difficult"

It really makes me question the validity of the rest of the points.

>What's the point of saying 'Wikileaks is trying to distract us from happenings in Russia' when you are not even specifying the things we are supposedly being distracted from?

Am I required to have omniscient knowledge of the subject prior to commenting? You asked me what I was referring to, and I answered your question.

It has been painfully clear, with almost every release in recent history, that wikileaks uses releases as distractions to take the spotlight away from other stories. That's why it's worth bringing this up on every post.

Just because wikileaks wants the story to be about the release, doesn't mean that's where the real story is. I'm curious as to what the real story is. I do not know the answer to that question, hence my initial comment.

Discussion from last: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14920664

I wonder what political news story this is trying to take attention away from...

Ya, I fail to see the benefit of this (for IoT) over using any other widely-available technology for secure communication (SSH, etc)

Why are they allowed to request this with no reason? Why can the government dictate what I'm doing with no legal basis?

OK, let me be more specific. How is the request legally sound?

Thank you for responding, these are some really good points that really made me rethink my opinion of this topic.

I definitely agree that I do not want extremist groups to grow and become even more of a 'thing' in the US. However, I do not know if I am OK with stripping people of their 4th amendment rights just because they have been 'associated' with a terrorist group (or visited a terrorist group's website...) That's a dangerous path.

I also still fail to see how the information taken from Dreamhost would help them track somebody who committed a crime. What, are they going to subpoena everyone's ISPs to find out who every single person is, then arrest them and see if they happen to be someone who committed a crime? That's wrong. What am I missing here? How could this be used in any way except to build a list of 'potential terrorists' in some 3 letter org's database?

How is that legally sound?

You're right, I was quick to judge and patronize the previous comment, which isn't helpful. My b.

I think what irked me, specifically, is the way the question was phrased, as though guilt was the default assumption, which is absurd to me.

I interpreted "What alternatives exist for getting this info?" as "What other way would big brother be able to violate your rights, except through this?" which I now realize is not what he was trying to say.

Has there been any evidence linking the users of this site directly to this riot? My core issue is that this seems to me to be a case of attacking political opponents through the legal system.

What evidence do they have that there is relevant information in those records directly tied to someone who committed a crime? I fail to see anything in this article that actually mentions a valid reason for this search.

Their original request covered over a million users. How could that possibly be reasonable?

I hope this is an opportunity for you to learn and not just me wasting my time addressing a troll.

>what alternative is there to find out who they are?

That's not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking yourself is "why am I OK with violating the 4th amendment rights of millions of citizens"

This is absolutely insane. I hope this eventually reaches an appeals court that understands the 4th amendment.

Wow, what an incredibly narrow world view.

Are you under the impression that everyone in the world has had access to decent education their entire lives?

Are you under the impression that motivation is the sole factor in determining one's ability to learn?

>How can you learn to learn

By not taking everything hyper-literally. The course is educating people on strategies they can use to help retain and learn information. How is that self-defeating?

Maybe it was flagged because the broader technical community doesn't give two shits about some perceived internet slight and is not interested in childish politics infesting software projects.

This was a waste of time to read.

That's a really dishonest argument.

How are they supporting the people? How does this benefit society? All this does is attempt to take away the spotlight from other shit happening in our country. Every major country develops hacking software. This isn't news. This isn't even surprising or ground-breaking. It's not even that invasive, it requires physical access AND an admin account!

This is just a distraction. Society is no better off with this information being public.

It's really sad that this is what Wikileaks has turned into.

Regardless of the authenticity of the information, they clearly only release information when it is politically beneficial for their(?) motives.

And pencil marks can't be erased?

I don't see any supporting arguments that directly support that thesis. That's a very open-ended, subjective statement.

I'm no Facebook fanboy but this article feels like a "why does my square peg not fit into their round hole" type of complaint. Facebook is a social network, not a public blogging platform.

Here is my interpretation of the complaints. Please point out what I am missing.

>It's impractical...

Square peg round hole.

>It's supporting their downgrading and killing the web...

Facebook posts being inherently (mostly) simple text is 'killing the web'? I don't buy it.

>Facebook might go out of business.

Just a generic SaaS complaint. Nothing unique to Facebook about this.

Am I missing a core argument here?

Generic fearmongering isn't adding anything to the discussion.

Morality is an inherently grey subject. Boolean morality only exists in a vacuum. I do agree with your underlying sentiment that it's all about perspective, but I don't feel like you're adding anything to the conversation, as your post could essentially be boiled down to "morality is about perspective" - which, in my personal opinion, falls into the realm of common sense.

However, after reading some of the other comments in this thread, I might have to rethink that. It's interesting to see how many people seem to be unable to see through their own moral outrage.

I think we both are in agreement in sentiment, but I do not think you effectively communicated your ideas in a way that would be beneficial to a constructive discussion. It's too easy for people who disagree with you to point out flaws in your argument as opposed to understanding and discussing your true point.

Your whole post is disingenuous and full of logical fallacies.[1]

>Take a homeless person and let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn -> moral hero.

This is a flawed thesis if you're still trying to argue w.r.t. lordnacho's post.

>Take a homeless person

First off, there's no reason to believe that that person was or was not homeless prior to the situation. This is called an "Argument from ignorance"[2]

>let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn

This premise is really a False analogy[3], and explicitly ignores the other warning signs in his post that would indicate that this is not what the situation truly is.

Also, in most developed countries, there are very specific labor and tenant laws. "I'm letting him sleep on my couch if he mows my lawn once a week" is not a legal agreement. It is also not equivalent to "I have a live-in maid" - which also has a buttload of legal protections.

All of your other statements are riddled with half-truth bullshit and I'm not interested in explicitly explaining the rest to you. If you are, in fact, serious about being able to "rationality ground your morality" then I suggest you take a look at some of your statements and think about how grounded in reality they truly are.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_an...