C4stor

I don't deny that there are unhealthy habits (playing WoW 24/7 is most definitely unhealthy for the mind and body). My thought is that at the same time : - No hobby is immune to leading to addictive patterns, (some are definitely more prone than others). - No hobby always lead to addictive patterns

So in my opinion, if you don't engage unhealthily in your hobby, there's really none that is better than an other. So, WoW, climbing, dancing, reading, commenting on HN, whatever is good for you, I don't think one is inherently better.

There is an objective difference, but there is in my opinion not an "objective" better way to live. (There are certainly healthier ways, in the sense that it optimizes the ages at which you die, which is...good ?).

It seems you value a certain psychological state, so, good for you, but this psychological state is not necessarily sought by everyone, and claiming it's better seems a bit rude.

If I'm to play the devil's advocate, I could you're seeking social ephemeral experiences to keep you distracted because you're not able to achieve the better state of being satisfied on your own through the objectively better activity of...meditation ?

I think you can see how obnoxious this is to see your own activities denigrated. And really, I don't think meditating is better than playing a game or than watching a streamer. All of these activities can lead to pathological behaviours (with varied rates I suppose ?), and when they do not they all sound great and all have a purpose.

So, I wouldn't engage in classifying activities as good or bad, but I'd rather have psychological support available to all practicioners.

No ^^ Your source says the chewing ice is a known symptom of anemia, but does not say how prevalent this symptom is in anemia-affected people.

So from that source you can't conclude that anemia "often" leads to chewing ice, it may very well be quite rare.

Abstractly, "A is often a consequence B" does not logically goes to "B often leads to A".

To use an extreme exemple, crossing paths with polar bears (chewing ice) is generally linked with dieing (anemia), but death is quite rarely caused by crossing paths with polar bears.

I'll keep it in mind :-)

My context with using english in general (like here on HN) is communicating as a non-native with both native speakers and non-native speakers. For some of those, just reading english is a challenge.

Since I also know I can easily write nonsensical sentences, I thought this article was a good reminder on how to safely stay in the "I make sense" area in this context, and as so disagreed with person I replied to ^^

I would definitely have higher ambitions regarding "tone" in my mother tongue though, but for english writing, I'll be happy if I can be clear !

As a non-native english writer, I found the article quite good.

It reminds good practices for clear communication, which I wish everyone applied in my org.

Notably around me, people excessively use passive forms.

So, you weren't interested, but it doesn't mean it interests noone.

[1] says "Craving and chewing ice (pagophagia) is often associated with iron deficiency,", not what you claimed which is the opposite.

As far as I can see, there's no indication on this page as to how frequently iron deficiency leads to ice chewing.

We...don't ? The world never "returned" from AIDS for example, but we found ways to mitigate its propagation while a cure is searched. Masks may very well be the new condom I suppose ?

Whao, that's pretty cool ! I'm so curious of the results now ^^

Maybe we're so used to "denominations" meaning the exact opposite or at least something totally unrelated to what the party/group/association/lobby... really is that it's not really shocking anymore.

I'm a little disappointed that the landing page for this challenge itself doesn't seem to be a live a/b test with live results for how much submissions are garnered through the human version of the page versus the gpt-3 one.

Fun challenge though !

I find it a bit funny that the whole discussion seems to be on what definition is better. The two complements each other perfectly, and reading them actually makes both clearer for me.

Since there is in the modern world almost no use case where you're heavily space contrained (maybe the final print version of an article for some publications ? I'm not that familiar with the research world), I don't see why you'd try to choose one instead of including both where needed.

Decent logging of all changes and error happening on the platform I work on usually lead me to pretty much the following dialog :

" - I have a problem, the platform is broken" " - Sure, do you have any rough idea when that happened " (I discovered that weirdly, people are very good to report a bug a day or even more after it actually happened) " - Around [some hours range]" (Get the logs for this time and this user) " - Ok, I see every information I need in the logs, it will be fixed soon"

And that's pretty much it. Oftentimes, I don't even need the time bit, just finding the user history in the logs is enough.

I'm always puzzled at engineers rambling about "users never learn how to do a correct bug report", but it seems like they themselves never actively learned that and integrated it in their everyday life.

Since users indeed never learn, stop expecting them to !

After various HN threads about this company, and taking a tour on the element.io website, I'm still not sure what this is about to be honest.

I understand it's a chat app, but

- The pricing is really confusing (seems like the app is free, but having an account is paying ?). - Is this a professional thing, like slack, or more of a whatsapp-like thing ? Trying to do both ? The whole differentation point seems to be based on the Matrix thing, but it's not really clear why is that important ? (I don't typically care about the backend of the app I use).

I mean, the front page says : "All-in-one secure chat app for teams, friends and organisations. Keeps conversations in your control, safe from data-mining and ads. Talk to everyone through the open global Matrix network, protected by proper end-to-end encryption."

So, the starter is what everyone says. "Safe from data mining and ads" is good, it makes me curious about what is the pricing then, and I wouldn't mind paying a cheap price for a correct messaging app. And then there's this Matrix bit, and I don't even know if it's good or bad. So I went to the pricing page (which doesn't exist, but there are "plans") and here, well the app is free, and I can get my account hosted either somewhere free, or either on the Element Matrix servers, where it should be safe from eavesdropping ? But with proper end to end encryption, it should be safe everywhere ? Or is the app by default not end to end encrypted, but hosting it somewhere makes it so ? It sounds really weird to be honest.

So really, good for you for renaming, but I don't think it's what will make me change (even though since whatsapp is facebook owned, I'm ready to migrate myself and my whole family on something else once the ads are there).

Cloud-like run environments would typically have some network to do. Comparing booting an OS from a local SSD with booting from network-reachable resources isn't really fair due to huge difference in the performance of the "resource bus" assigned to each case in my opinion.

Since a lot of good points have been raised already, I'd though I'd mention something else which have seen happening quite often :

Often times development teams are applying all kind of processes and reporting are taken accountable for the bug they make, and are overall held to a high standard of quality. All the company is able to consult the backlog, ask questions, whatever, it seems good, and they're ok with it in general.

But then, the dev team may very well fell like all the other team are basically doing the exact opposite. Maybe the sales team will never admit a single failure to close on its team side, the product one will never admit its specs were flawed, the marketing will never admit its creatives where delivered too late, etc...

And that perceived unfairness may be a deal breaker for engineers in my experience. They don't care for example (or even know) if the sales guys have to go to nightclubs until 1am to land a deal while they clock out a 6.30pm, they value visible equality of treatment.

So to retain certains developers, company wide "fairness" may go a long way. (I use quotes because I'm not 100% sure this is the correct english term).

Well, I've personally contributed to small parts, and never encountered the problem. I don't doubt there are jerks on Wikipedia, but I would also bet that neither the author of this nice github repo or the praised youtuber mentioned in the comments even tried to commit anything into it.

Not that they should for some reason, but too often editing wikipedia is presented/thought of as something reserved to a happy few with deep social consequences, when it's in fact the simplest thing in the world.

Well, it's not Wikipedia's fault if people producing intuitive content are not contributing to it. It's not like editors go out of their way to remove nice explanations.

Well, let's take an example : "It also avoids situations where you can be fined for insulting the president by holding up a sign that says "get lost, you prat" (France)."

The police fined the guy, which doesn't mean that the french people supported the police on this (they didn't), and that the law supported the police on this (it didn't).

So either police actions are a good scope to evaluate the importance of free speech, or either they aren't, but it shouldn't be only when it's convenient.

The recent flux of videos of US policemen physically assaulting people making use of their free speech right tends to make me think it's not in fact "that important" in the US to be honest.

To be fair, France still don't fully know what to do with radioactive waste.

We're kinda good at recycling it (so, indeed not the horrifying process your [1] describes), but the final non reusable waste is in fact just stored where it's produced, waiting for better ideas on what to do with it, so it's not exactly ideal. There are a dozen of publicly funded current research projets on that, so let's cross fingers. Overall, I'd say that our policies are pretty solid to get us towards a good solution in the best possible shape, but I wouldn't say that France got the answer yet.

(Also, old plants deconstruction is a planned problem with currently no planned solutions.)

Also, there are actual quite reasonable rules to know which 3rd declension nouns are i-stems, so it doesn't seem too right too just say "follow your gut".

Btw, I wouldn't abuse latin comparisons on an american forum, I don't think it's quite in the culture ^^

>You have to acknowledge that if everyone did like you, then the whole thing wouldn't be able to sustain itself. It only works because most people take the hit and play by the rules.

Except there's no data proving that people pirating movies/music/... are not also paying the industry.

Anecdotally, the persons I know in the habit of pirating entertainments are also some of the biggest spenders I know on the same things.

So, it's entirely possible that if everyone did like him, the whole thing would sustain itself. And if you have something tending to prove the contrary, I'm quite curious.

I can confirm that the support on for example displayvideo360 (one of google ad products) is absolutely stellar even for very low revenue players. Meaning live chat with well trained support persons, and quick escalation if needed. Resolution rate : 100% within a couple day in our case.

Rarely !

But what regularly happens is that I stumble on my own comments and/or helper methods, which saves me a ton of time.

Turns out that having a clean code structure with clear places to have those 5-liners that you need all the time is really useful, and by now I've got so much of them that they compose quite powerfully ! And old comments are like gold nuggets when the time comes to debug.

Well, that would be a completely different and interesting discussion, but I don't think it's really relevant to the point I'm trying to make ^^

No, it's not orwellian at all.

There a ton of things you can't ask as payment for your services. It may be physical (let's say body parts), or conceptual (let's say the user freedom of speech). Those things can't be enforced by any contract, however you want to write them, and even if you somehow got someone to sign on it, it would still be void.

In the EU, we deemed suitable to add "privacy" to the list of things you can't legally ask a payment for when providing a service in the form of a website.

That's it. Maybe that's shocking for you, but it's not for me, it's not for the people I voted for, and apparently it's not for quite a number of people and so, it passed.

If you don't like how the law works, well, don't live in the EU ? You can find a lot of countries where this is isn't a consideration, and that may suit you better. Otherwise, well, you've been pwned by democracy. Tough luck !

(I won't begin to adress your comparison with the baker, because, well, I can't begin to make sense of it.)

That's not true. It forces the site owner to provide content under its own terms as long as its terms does not involve non necessary functionalities provided by other companies. You can still enforce you own terms, but you can't enforce the GAFA cookies at the same time.

Said otherwise, your terms of service must be privacy-sensible, which is indeed the very goal of the law.

The cookie consent wall is only a solution for sites willing to drop third-party cookies.

You can still require anything regarding your own website to access it, including cookies, as long as those are needed for the correct functioning of your website.

What this clarifies is that you can longer restrict your website access to people "consenting" to have tens of other companies dropping cookies on them.

As usual, someone suggests that _other people_ change their way of life because it's bad, without any impact on himself of course.

It's really easy to preach without having any skin in the game isn't it ?

But at least it was added.

In the meanwhile, your own article doesn't mention this addition in anyway, because I suppose it weakens your narrative ?