cantrip

I don't like kill functions. If you have to trust that the owner won't just kill the contract in the middle of your goal it's not actually trustless.

A reverse Atlas Shrugged, where society flourishes and people are able to fulfill their full potential once all the incredibly corrupt people disappear from the system.

Yes, I believe that journalists should not be basing their reporting on hearsay.

I think there's a logical argument to be made that if you have one victim who does not wish to speak publicly but multiple other women who will, you respect the privacy of that woman.

Yeah I really don't get it. It's not like the accusations from the multiple women who would speak on the record weren't damning enough.

But the author decided to open the article with secondhand accounts of abuse towards a woman who did not want to speak about it.

It's very poor journalism.

Don't diminish it by labeling it trendy.

It's not trendy it's a much needed discussion that is a long time overdue. Don't diminish it by labeling it as trendy.

Except if they get acquired, or go public, or go out of business and are liquidating assets, or just change their minds. You don't need to trust them with your data if they don't collect it and they don't need to collect if for you to do your job effectively.

It's insane that this article outs one of the alleged victims based on other's account of what happened even though she herself declined to comment.

Women should be given the freedom to disclose these things on their own terms and this has been taken away from her.

But your employer can easily sell that data to big data companies, now or at any point in the future, whether you're still working there or not.

Except that we have the value of hindsight and presumably an advanced understanding of risk.

Back then it might have been perfectly acceptable to throw a bunch of horses and cars together and risk them crashing into each other.

Today it should be unacceptable to throw automated cars in with human drivers and put the onus on the humans to alter their innate understanding of 100 years of traffic flow.

Your comment is cheeky and annoyingly inapplicable.

I think you're projecting sophistication because you use an ad blocker and mostly peruse the subreddits you explicitly subscribe to.

If you take a look at /r/popular it's mostly nonsense. The majority of reddit are looking at cute animals and memes about tv, movies, and video games.

I get your frustration but the answer is less money.

Yeah, the article actually mentions and links to trypophobia specifically and explains why it is used.

Previous discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=toothycat.net

Let's break it down.

The first poster says Facebook "[is] not [a] concern for democracy".

The responder says "What an uneducated answer from what I assume is a techy. Facebook is a treat to democracies. There are more articles on this than the other way around."

The first two sentences seems to imply that they disagree with what has just been said, that is except for the word "treat", which implies that they actually agree. If they are saying "treat" then they're saying not only is Facebook not a concern for democracy, but it is actively beneficial.

However this argument is then immediately negated by saying "There are more articles on this than the other way around." Ignoring the ridiculously false logic of the statement, there are objectively more articles about Facebook being a threat to democracy than there are about Facebook being a benefit to it.

Thus I concluded the person meant "threat", which I found to be a very obvious conclusion given the context of the statement.

One of the most annoying things to me about HN, or any forum site in general, is when people jump on obvious typos or grammar errors when they could easily ignore them and respond to the actual content of the comment instead.

Use context. It's so incredibly obvious that this person didn't mean treat, and yet here it is, a little jab to say "I'm just a little bit better than you" because I noticed a missing h and just couldn't help but point it out to everyone else, who also noticed it but didn't care.

It's possible this was only done on Android specifically because the odds of this being picked up and the app rejected by Apple are close to 100% while the odds of that happening in Google Play are about 0%.