dpkirchner

A dozen times a day, every day? No thanks.

> Most people are just very nice and love chatting a bit as well

In my experience, this depends on the context. Everywhere I've lived the only time strangers try to talk to me is to either a) ask for directions (1%) or b) beg for money (99%).

I see people in these comments suggesting we should just say no thanks I don't want to chat -- I'd have to repeat that a dozen times a day. It's exhausting and I don't gain anything from it. I figure these folks must live in totally different locations.

> I came from a small village where it is normal to greet people and maybe chat, even if you don't know them.

Yeah, I could see that. If my village/city wasn't plagued by petition beggars or money beggars or merchant beggars I'd probably be more interested in engaging.

If you believe parallel construction should be illegal (it sure seems like it is unconstitutional to me), then 100% of prosecutions that rely on it are unjust. I don't think anyone truly knows how common it is, though, and that's by design. Double-digits wouldn't shock me at all.

It's not even clear they spent all the money. Maybe it just wasn't a viable product.

I am just glad we know that was the result of a prompt written by an American. USA! USA!

"Our models are so good the government decides whether or you get access -- so you better not depend on them!"

Unfortunately this is one of the few cases where both sides are close to the same -- they both chose to heavily tariff foreign EVs. Something to remember when Democrats talk about climate change.

> Are we just concluding "their concerns were never real"?

Their concerns are probably real but I don't think they're being totally transparent about their concerns. They don't want to be subject to regulation (until they have captured the regulator) -- same as every behemoth.

Maybe -- I think that's the reasoning behind government-enforced bans on photography and recording inside of slaughterhouses.

The passenger may not have even known, I've certainly renamed friends' phones as a goof, although not to something that would get them in to trouble.

They sent push notifications to their users promoting Nazi content, to users that did not sign up to receive Nazi content. And rather than fixing the problem -- that they host and embrace Nazi content -- they said they fixed the notification issue so "problem solved".

I wish they'd all host on substack.com and not their own domains. It's always uncomfortable to go to a site from HN and see that nazi-enabling substack banner.

These are the same folks that removed the very useful Google cache feature because people weren't using it any more. What they forgot to say is they hid the feature beforehand.

Of course they have more AI queries every day. They have full control over what goes to LLMs and what doesn't.

In that case at least they could point out that end users got better results with AMP than they do with news sites w/o ad blockers. The AI results are just wrong so often I don't really get it.

Your source clearly says that the likelihood of transmission is reduced, not eliminated.

I think it'd be pretty neat to be able to rebase my undo history on to a remote branch someone else is working on.

I thought for more than two minutes before replying, so I guess not. What makes it difficult for someone who cares about what their child looks at online to determine for themselves what sites are suitable?

Speaking for myself there is one other factor that plays a huge part:

4: Nearly every time a stranger tries to talk to me it is to beg for money or sell me something (which is also begging)

In fact I'd say this is by far the prime reason I don't interact with people I don't know. I'm not a kid, however.

Surely parents can look at the sites and decide for themselves whether or not they are suitable.

Hell, they have .microsoft. Why'd they bother?

But not so wrong that they could get their account back in 10 minutes.

I've been wondering if I should be interrogating my friends before allowing them access to my wifi. "Have you or any of your family members ever been banned by Google?"

Those cookie banners aren't required for conversations -- a persistent session cookie would be enough (if you don't want to make the user sign in every time). The cookie banner implementation is a burden companies choose to place on themselves (and then to burden their users).

Not only are we not all brand conscious, some of us are so brand-blind that we buy clothes with large ads printed all over.

How much power could we get out of the fuel required to launch a 20-100kW rack in to space, if we were to burn it on the ground?

I wouldn't want to use anything that earn them money, if I could avoid it. That it was half the population doesn't change my view.

I understand that it is difficult for me to shun (which is basically what I'm talking about) so many people, or to even know if they should be shunned, but it would definitely be my preference.

Has he apologized?

"Then, I would approach them, wave or tap them on the shoulder to get their attention, and then give them my opening line."

This is absolutely bonkers to me. We're not here to be scientifically experimented on or to make you feel better about yourself. The very idea that OP learned about places and activities that people participate in explicitly to be social and, instead, chose to touch people when they're not clearly wanting to chat is just wild.

What do we have to do to discourage you from touching us?

I mean I guess I'm glad that you're trying to resolve your anxiety. Self improvement is good for some people. I just wish it weren't at the expense of others.

> I really need some politics-free scholarship on this.

It's impossible to discuss GDP without politics, could you describe exactly what it is about political discussion that you'd want to avoid?