Phone in the bed? My phone is not in the bed. It still wakes me up when vibrating.
21,790 karma · joined October 15, 2012
Probably depends a lot on the person. A phone already does that for me, and doesn't have the associated uncomfortableness of wearing a watch while I sleep.
And the only way that would make any sense is if you also believe that what Sony is doing wouldn't be anticompetitive even if they were selling their consoles at a profit.
Which makes that argument a complete distraction, given the sheer number of opportunities you've evaded to simply clarify that that criterion (or any other, for that matter) would actually make a difference in your eyes. Honestly, how hard you've avoided approaching this speaks volumes for itself IMO, but perhaps other readers will see this differently.
Am I representing your stance correctly and if so do you see any potential issues with this?
Feels disingenuous to ignore the fact that what I said applies to the rest of the comment too, don't you think? If it isn't obvious: typically the first year after a move - likely more, at least until House elections - most people will have zero reason to know their representatives' names, let alone keep remembering it for years. Who ever forgets a name they learned during a campaign a couple years ago, right?
For starters, something like almost ~half of students move away from their families to attend college. And then look at moves for jobs and retirement and everything else. And then when an incumbent leaves, all of their constituents end up in a similar boat as someone who just moved. And I'm not even beginning to touch the fact that a lot of people's unawareness of politics is (spoiler, I know) due to them not having the luxury to be able to devote as much bandwidth to it as HNers do. All these people shouldn't have any political opinions whatsoever until they figure out their representatives because... some wise guy on HN thinks knowing your representative's name is a good litmus test for whether you can tell good from bad? Do you expect any other response than "screw you"?
> I've never called anyone about anything political
Quite a confession given the side you're standing on. You'd think such a model citizen would've at least cared to contact their rep one damn time to suggest something about such a serious issue. Like maybe helping educate people about the government and politics better so they become as enlightened as the others.
If you (and/or parent, whoever feels this way) genuinely want a good outcome for something so serious instead of standing on a high horse and looking down on the uneducated, maybe actually go campaign to put your lovely literacy tests in the constitution, or whatever else would advance your cause forward. If you have some integrity, perhaps also campaign to fund the education system better and make it easier for citizens to vote in the same amendment, so that you're actually helping the people you presumably care about. Until you actually do something meaningful about this, I hope you can understand that your opinions about who should have opinions really won't come across the way you'd presumably hope they do.
Or, you know, you haven't lived at the same address for twenty years. In your imagined world where every single citizen either has something so pressing to call their representatives about or is just ignorant, you're still basically filtering out everybody who moved for a job/college/SO/whatever recently. I guess in your mind it's only fitting that they're disqualified from having an opinion? For reference about 12% of Americans change residence each year.
> Unless they have direct evidence [...] it's a pre-crime judgment.
But how does it being pre-crime judgment etc. imply it is a pretext too?
Just look up the definition:
- A pretext is "a false reason given to hide the real motivation behind an action." [1]
- A pretextual stop is "pull(ing) people over for minor rule violations [...] as an excuse to conduct a search and go fishing for other crimes." [2]
Notice it says "false", "hide", and "other crime"? And not merely "bad reason" to "serve as an excuse" to "search for any crime"?
Here, they appear to have done exactly what they claimed they their intentions were, and as a result discovered exactly what they suspected. Is anyone disputing this? If this was a "pretext", then what the heck are we alleging were their "real" motivations and "other" crimes? How could they have possibly been more honest in their intentions?
You agree balking means being unwilling, right?
So not balking means being willing, right?
He did not balk, therefore he was not unwilling, therefore he was willing, right?
So he was willing to do what Microsoft asked, "but" so was the next guy? What?
I feel like one of us is extremely confused.
"Balk" = "stop" = "refuse to proceed", right?
So "<did not> balk" = "<did not> stop" = "<did not> refuse to proceed", right?
"<Did not> refuse to proceed" with Microsoft's proposal therefore means he in fact complied with Microsoft's proposal and did proceed with it, right?
What he did not do was comply/capitulate/etc.
Reveal what? The country of the airport and my travel was irrelevant. You wanted to talk about the US and I talked about the US.
> Could it be because you knew you were wrong, ahead of time?
Wow, you totally caught me.
> notice how this one doesn't say anything about a meat patty, except for the picture.
Except the picture? Why the heck would I ignore the picture? Do you understand the fundamental issue here, or do you think it was that I was too stupid to look for a picture when I looked at the menu at the airport?
Since it's so difficult to comprehend: the whole problem is over whether information is communicated adequately enough that people can confidently understand what they're buying. The format of said communication, whether typewritten on a menu, imaged digitally, drawn by hand, handwritten on papyrus, engraved into a rock, or verbal from the waiter... is so clearly not the point.
> also no mention of beef.
It's literally in the photo. You seem to be really struggling to find examples where this information is actually missing. I wonder why.
> Provide an example, then.
Have you heard of Shake Shack? https://www.google.com/search?q=give+me+an+example+of+a+mush...
Common sense did, not Big Dairy.
> There’s nothing wrong with referring to other kinds of milk as milk.
There very much is. For most people, if they go to a shop and ask for milk and get handed goat milk, they will get annoyed. Similarly if they ask for eggs and get handed duck eggs or quail eggs. I don't know why common sense is so lacking on this forum but this is not my opinion, this is a fact.
But yeah, if someone disagrees with you they're just Big Dairy shill. There's no other way a rational person could disagree with another.
Or when they ask for meat, do you also show them the meat of the latest math problem you were working on?
Just because it's in the dictionary that doesn't mean you get to ignore what most people mean by it in context.
Heck, the top result I get for "what is a mushroom burger" on Google right now is a meatless one: https://www.recipetineats.com/swiss-mushroom-burger/
And the top AI result is similarly about another non-veg restaurant's meatless burger.
If a problem isn't yours that doesn't mean it's fake.
You can simply not waste your time on it, that's not other people's problem. Why should they even care that you're wasting your time? When you clearly don't care about them wasting time or money due to this stuff, you should expect zero sympathy for your own time wastage on the subject. You need to show sympathy before you receive it.
Which I point out here because there are people saying "just check the ingredients" and, no, this clearly happened despite that.
And which I also point out because the same people arguing "just check the ingredients" would get mad (possibly even more so) if you actually agree and decide to require reliable ingredient lists.
P.S. The top result I see for "what is a mushroom burger" on Google is meatless: https://www.recipetineats.com/swiss-mushroom-burger/
> If you use recursion, both the absolutely necessary state and the temporaries are pushed onto the stack (along with the stack frame the language runtime wants). If you use iteration, the programmer just pushes the necessary state onto the stack, and reuses the temporaries in place.
If that's the statement, what you (addressing both yourself & the OP) are arguing here is that it's easier to avoid unintentional temporaries with iteration. Nobody argued against that, it's obviously true. It clearly doesn't mean iteration is always faster, it just means achieving one particular outcome is easier with it.
Before you drop your mic though: what you're missing here the ugly half of the picture, which is that this is because managing any state in the iterative version of arbitrary recursive calls is already a massive pain across calls [1], so of course you're unlikely to maintain unneeded state.
Basically, when it comes to iteration, you're assuming arbitrary amounts of effort (I guess because it wouldn't run at all otherwise, let alone quickly), but when it comes to recursion, suddenly you're assuming low effort (I guess because low optimization effort still gets it running, just less quickly).
That's... clearly an unfair comparison, and generalizing it to "iteration is faster than recursion" is silly.
P.S.: I should perhaps point out that compilers can & do partially inline even unbounded recursion. For you to argue iteration is faster, you'd have to basically argue that compilers can (and do) make analogous optimizations for the equivalent iterative versions of the same algorithms (read: manual management of a stack buffer, etc.) across equivalent level traversals of the algorithm. Do you actually believe that to be true? I'm not gonna proclaim this is impossible or that compilers never do this, but I can say I sure as heck don't recall ever seeing or hearing of this. From what I've seen, iteration would generate shorter code, not necessarily faster code.
I sat there looking dumb and the waiter thought (like everyone here) that I was some idiot who didn't know what a burger was. Now I'm not suggesting they need to regulate what "mushroom burger" means across the locality too, but I couldn't have been the first one to get caught off-guard by this, and the whole incident never needed to happen either. At least in an airport where people from all over stop by, I seriously wouldn't think that only a racist or anti-meatatarian/anti-vegetarian dictatorship would impose some common-sense rules to prevent confusion or food/time wastage arising from cuisine-"unculturedness".
I don't know if you're not seeing the obvious or deliberately ignoring it, but the rather-salient differences between those are that (a) "cheesesteak" being one word rather than two tells you it might be a different thing, and (b) "cheesesteak" (or even "cheese steak" by itself) do not carry a single universal meaning different from the rest. You know, unlike "beef patty", where even Googling it now doesn't show Jamaica in the top result.
If you want something to compare against, this is like banning people businesses from calling soymilk just "milk". Nobody minds if you sell soymilk or Jamaican beef patties. They're just asking you not to actively hijack terms that carry significantly different meaning to millions/billions of other people. It's not that hard and it's not some sort of totalitarian flex to have rules like this. With HN being what it is, they'd probably call banning that anti-veganism.
Leaving aside how ridiculous these numbers you pulled out of nowhere are, what godsent culturedness list are you using that is somehow so common knowledge and that yet the rest of us uncultured boneheads somehow missed the memo for? Even searching this now, and no disrespect whatsoever to Jamaica, I neither see "Jamaica" nor even "patty" listed in the top search result for the 100 top cuisines in the world [1]. For reference, they have Russian, Dutch, English, etc. listed, which (again, no disrespect intended) are the ones you often hear people complain/joke about as being bland.