758 karma · joined May 5, 2021
This is the reason why motorists lose their minds over bike lanes. It takes up space on THEIR roads and they hate when they can't use roads they personally paid for with THEIR taxes.
I personally find it hilarious they think their taxes cover the maintenance of even 1/10th of a km of a road let alone all of them they drive on all year.
You keep bringing up arguments I've already said will not sway me. I don't care that my ancestors were colonizers because it wasn't me. I don't care if you call me an invader because, again, it wasn't me.
I'm not interested in giving any land back to anyone or allowing anyone into the country with no checks and balances because of something that happened 100s of years ago. And yes, I'm aware of the residential schools, but no, our government being shitty still doesn't make me desire turning Canada into a postnational state. Because it wasn't me!
My ancestors are not me and I'm not interested in carrying weight on my shoulders for things other people have done.
Turning Canada into a postnational state would still be a terrible decision despite that fact. I still don't want my country to devolve into that.
It doesn't prove anything at all and Apple definitely did not make watches fashionable in 2015.
I'm wondering the same thing.
You are arguing with people because you think Apple invented wearing watches as a fashion statement with their release of the Apple watch in 2015.
That still doesn't make turning your country into a postnational state a good decision.
I'm still of the opinion that making Canada a post national state would be devolving the country even though I already know what you pointed out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postnationalism#In_Canada
Thankfully our country hasn't devolved to that point yet.
Source please! That's not how I remember the release, I recall it was very well recieved and sold out everywhere with the battery life being the biggest complaint.
> I would never have gone to the office wearing a moto360. People would have given me funny looks all day. Meanwhile you can wear an Apple Watch with your suit and everyone finds that acceptable.
I doubt you'll find a source, this entire paragraph is you projecting your own insecurities onto everyone else. Your opinion is not the general consensus or a source for anything so find a reliable 3rd party to back you up that isn't a random blogpost by Joe nobody.
Why the hell would anyone care if someone respects their profession or not anyways? Seems like a weird thing to get bent out of shape about.
Lighten up a little man, life is supposed to be about having fun and enjoying it.
Apple was late to the game with smartwatches and didn't do a single thing to convince people to wear them.
You admitted a judicial opinion is different from a personal opinion and you're making fun of my definition of a personal opinion? But you acknowledge a judicial opinion is different than a person opinion?
Why can't you extend that to a corporation? The "opinion" of a corporation or a judge is NOT the same as a personal opinion and there is a distinction that can/should be made. I'm not sure why you can agree with someone else that a judicial opinion is different than a personal opinion but when I say "not people opinions" are different from "people opinions" I'm wrong?
Liking something and trusting something are different things. I don't trust a single company and it doesn't matter if I like, hate, or love them. They're two mutually independent feelings no matter what you want to call one of them.
You're turning the comment into 3 words: "Darwinian opportunity ... [which is] self-solving"
Small reminder that on HN you are supposed to steelman comments when you reply, not strawman. Clearly those 3 words refers to the death of the person, but you can't ignore the remaining 10 words and say the entire comment was about eugenics. So which of the 13 words am I ignoring that you aren't?
Also natural selection and killing off dumb people who are already alive is not eugenics. It's either epigenetics or genocide but like I said in a previous comment: eugenics is used to select fitness _before birth_ not after.
I want to reiterate you will never be in a situation where everyone is respectful even if it's a professional setting. You also can't control what other people do so there's no point expecting people to give criticism respectfully or trying to teach people how to do so - you can't correct someone's behavior if they don't want to change it.
Every time I catch myself wanting to say "people should act like xyz" I stop myself and think "I will react a different way when someone acts like xyz" instead if I'm not happy with how the situation went. Especially if I've already expressed my feelings and someone has ignored them and still acts in a way I don't like.
> for the enthusiastic, apple is going to make it as low-friction as possible.
Going to a store is not low friction for an enthusiast. We've already established that the price tag shuts out all but the enthusiast.
Apple enthusiasts will do anything to buy Apple products.
I took either as meaning a learning opportunity for one or all of the 1) GPS app makers, 2) the person who blindly followed the directions of a robot, or 3) the rest of us who learn about the event.
What interpretation did you have that suggests they were referring to eugenics?
Small piece of advice: it is much better to learn how to take criticism of your code as exactly that - it's criticism of your code. People will always be unkind when reviewing code. Even if it's the best code ever written someone will have a different opinion and express it in a seemingly unkind way. It's easy to be unkind in code reviews because it's _code_ being reviewed and NOT a person with feelings.
Like you said, a different human (the more junior version of you) wrote that code, not you. It's not a criticism of you no matter how much your brain tries to tell you it is. People will never stop saying "who the fuck wrote this shit!?" and you will hear that phrase until the end of time. It's still not personal when people yell that in frustration.
For example, I have learned that Eastern Europeans tend to be absolutely brutal in code reviews. Everything will be nitpicked and the most benign design decisions you've made will be questioned. They make you feel stupid and inadequate but that's your own feelings. It's more likely you're dealing with a direct and to-the-point perfectionist who can see the code beyond your PR and how your code fits in with the rest of the application. They're not the greatest at communicating this context and their comments seem like personal attacks without that context.
If anything, they're talking about natural selection which is not eugenics. Eugenics is when you select fitness at birth.
GP would be endorsing genocide, or maybe epigenetics if anything, based on the small out of context comment. I highly doubt either was the intention and wonder how you got to the eugenics conclusion.
For example, I like Adidas shoes but when they boast about sustainability I question the truth in that and their intentions.
I prefer Pepsi over Coke but I don't trust either to be truthful in their marketing. I think it's bullshit that Santa prefers Coke, for one he's not even a real person, but I don't dislike Coke for using Santa as a mascot.
I hate Disney though and I firmly believe they're among one of the worst companies on the planet. I oppose anything they do out of principle and believe every decision they make needs to answer yes to the question "Will this make us a billion dollars?" I hope to live to see the day they fold and disappear forever.
So no, I don't dislike every corporation and my inherit distrust doesn't undermine my views one bit. I don't know how one can possibly trust a capitalist company whose motives are primarily profit driven. I don't know how one could think a company stands for anything that wouldn't make them money or would honestly have a goal that wasn't driven by profits.
A good barometer on if a company has morals is if they use rainbow logos in Saudi Arabia during June. Try coming up with a single argument for why a company world proudly display them in North America but not in the Middle East without mentioning profits or market share, and good luck. I personally think it's completely indefensible.
> You may have a chance to see justice because it won't matter if the cop and his 5 buddies say you provoked them with a camera. It's unambiguous that you can record them and there's no possibility of reasonable doubt if you're allowed to record them 100% of the time. There's no loophole they can use to say you can't record them due to privacy or safety or whatever other reasons they want to make up and they'll be in the wrong the second they take action against you.
There won't be a lie they can spin because they won't have any justification for attacking a cameraman. Note I also said may and spoke of probabilities. Furthermore, I admitted it's only a partial solution so I'm not sure what gotcha you're going for here. I know it's not foolproof or perfect, it's merely better than what we currently have.
> An example of "corporate opinion" off the top of my head: Facebook is in favour of advertising.
How is Facebook saying "we are in favour of advertising" an opinion?
How is "I like rain" is different and not an opinion? You told me "I like rain" is "a factual statement derived from your opinion" and not an opinion and then used that to strawman my argument.
Where I stand "I am in favour of advertising" is the exact same format and is not an opinion from YOUR definition. How are they different?
You've continuously refused to define opinion for me and continuously refuse to put anything in your own words. You throw paragraphs of strawman at me because I'm being unclear. You throw 3 dictionary links in my face with at least 25 different definitions and can't zero in on a single one.
Back at the top you said:
> An example of "corporate opinion" off the top of my head: Facebook is in favour of advertising.
Can you first confirm you said that and you stand by the statement? If you do, explain to me how Facebook saying "we are in favour of advertising" is an opinion.
Now explain to me how "I like rain" is different and not an opinion. You told me "I like rain" is "a factual statement derived from your opinion" and not an opinion and then used that to strawman my argument.
Where I stand "I am in favour of advertising" is the exact same format and is not an opinion from YOUR definition. So how about you explain exactly what you want from me because your contradictions are confusing me.
I'll proudly admit I have no trust in corporations, but dislike is a little far. There's corporations I like but there's no corporations I trust.
> You're making distinctions that don't exist.
>Thinking rain is good because it waters your garden is based on the fact that it will help your garden grow.
>Thinking rain is good because it sounds pleasant is based on the fact that you enjoy the sound of the rain.
I'm not sure how you can say the distinctions don't exist. There has to be an analogy but I don't think I can come up with one that will satisfy you. I mean you had to rewrite my example to make your point.. not sure how that's not the world's most obvious strawman, you literally twisted what I said into something else and went on to argue against that.
I think it's easy enough to glean what I mean from my past replies if someone wanted to try to understand me.
You had me define it in my own words and was able to tell me I'm wrong but you never gave me the same chance.
There's a reason why people throw their hands up and say "it's just my opinion!" when they're blatantly wrong about something. It's a phase used to indicate they don't care about facts and they don't have to defend their position, which I thought was the common definition of opinion: a position one holds even when the facts say they're wrong.
If you like rain because it waters your garden I'd hesitate to call that opinion because you have a factual reason.
If you like rain because it sounds pleasant that's an opinion.
If you like rain because it restores your chi it's (probably) an opinion.
I say governments and corporations can't have opinions for lots of reasons. One of them being they're not people, others that follow from that, like you need thoughts or feelings to have an opinion.
It just doesn't sit right with me having faceless entities publishing opinions because by definition opinions aren't based on facts and we have enough of a problem with regular people spreading misinformation.
I gave you my opinion on what an opinion is, now why can't you return the favour instead of throwing thousands of words back in my face with no nuance or context?
If you're not interested in the conversation that's fine too, but just say so.