farias0

But this are not the only info. OS language, dark mode preferences, fonts installed, all this stuff goes a long way in helping pinpointing you.

Yep, this site should tell you if your fingerprint is unique among all the other visitors, like other fingerprint sites do. I know a positive would only be meaningful if the website gets popular, but a negative would say a lot regardless.

In my experience with enterprise software one of the things that cause most trouble is premature modularization (sibling to the famous premature optimization).

Just like I can't understand how people can come up with the right tests before the code in TDD, I can't understand how people can come up with the right microservices before they start developing the solution.

I'd always had a feeling Clicker Games work as a satire of the worst side of video games, the one that prays on your dopamine system without offering anything artistically, intellectually, creatively or mechanically interesting, like a generic MMO stripped of its fancy clothing, or a stupid mobile game taken to its extreme.

And then comes Universal Paperclips, whose whole appeal is that it subverts this by doing something really cool and interesting with the formula.

Yes! I'm against this decision, but dislikes are so unreliable as indicators of propaganda that they might as well not be there. All they indicate is how the video was received by its audience (duh), and decent propaganda is designed to rig this game.

The only times I remember seeing a high dislike-to-like ratio are on things that went viral in the wrong circles, so internet decided to mass-downvote the for inconsequential reasons, like Rebecca Black's Friday or the announcement for some video game that isn't made to appeal to the "core gaming public".

Sure, this is something you can do with smartphones, but people used Facebook, Orkut, MySpace, etc. before this was a thing. In other words, the fact that they can show their memes around the table isn't the reason they use this apps.

The same was said about "classic" social networks (like Facebook and Instagram) when they first appeared. What happened is that they didn't replace IRL interactions -- instead, they invented new ways of interacting, new social dynamics. Why can't this be the case for VR? To be neither real-life nor classic social media, but something else entirely.

That's more or less what I'm saying, yes.

Have you seen the Tyler the Creator cyberbulling tweet? That's how most people actually feel deep down.

Who goes along with Facebook? Most tech-enthusiasts I know make a point about not using anything Facebook (Whatsapp notwithstanding). It's just that most people don't care that much about tech-related ideologies, the same way most people don't care about animal rights, or the environment. TL;DR: We have to pick our fights.

The problem with US politicians is that they are sold out to the private sector. This is a problem that would obviously not exist if there was no private sector, or if it was weaker, which is the "what if" of the discussion.

Sure, then we could elect politicians that are bad in different ways, but then this becomes a discussion against socialism, which is not what I'm intending here. I'm only talking about socialism hypothetically. My point is that we can't ignore capitalism's shortcomings. We have to understand what having profit as a main motivator leads to, so we can deal with it.

Well, sure, this is trying to fix capitalism, which is something I'm all for. But one way or another, I think it's vital to have the shortcomings of a capitalist system understood. It's one thing to believe capitalism is the way to go, it's another to go defend that we should always act in self interest and this will only lead to good things.

I mean, probably? If we had elected good officials at least. I'm not defending socialism at all, but if you accept the fact that this kind of thing happens because there's no monetary incentive for the industry to avoid it, then the logical conclusion is that under a system not motivated by profit this would be less likely to happen.

But what I'm sure you are aware of this line of thinking. What is the argument against it?

I don't know, reading books to me is very easy, but I find hard to focus on work. I conditioned myself to instinctively alt-tab from my IDE every time a problem gets frustrating to the point I often do this without realizing, meanwhile my "reading workflow" haven't been poisoned yet. So my thesis is that this is less related to losing attention/willpower overall and it's more related to creating distracting habits.

Although I don't fundamentally disagree with your point, I don't think you're framing the issue fairly. It's not a matter of most people being enemies of free speech, it's just that this is an inherently difficult problem. Everyone draws the line differently on what's acceptable and what isn't, and every platform is trying to foster a different kind of community.

It's not supporting "the tiny fraction of people who can do repairs". It's supporting everyone who might choose to take it to a third party instead of Apple when it breaks -- be it for better price, better service, or even to force Apple to be competitive on both fronts. Hell, it's even supporting the very idea of fixable devices, as this arguably impacts not only post-sale support, but also the very design of said devices.

It's not black and white, we don't need to go full cyberpunk wild west to establish some level of control over our electronics.

Did he, though? He was famous for being an incredible hacker, and then he conflated this profile with his furry persona and used it to talk about LGBT stuff. It saddens me so much that things have to be this way, that people can't put themselves out there without being (literally) bullied to death, but being pragmatic he could have separated those two "personalities", especially considering one of those is extremely well known in certain circles.

I have a feeling moderating online speech is a losing game. There will always be platforms such as 4chan and KF willing to provide a space to any kind of speech. Maybe I've become too cynical, but I've come to accept that the only way to not be bullied or harassed online is to not expose yourself too much online, such as through compartmentalizing different aspects of your online social life through different social media accounts.

I know this sounds like victim-blaming, but this is not my intention. It's just that maybe we humans were not built to be judged by everyone everywhere. For those that watched the anime Evangelion, there was a nice, forward-thinking discussion about this idea there.

You fell into the trap most nerds do -- you focused only on intellectual interests, and neglected other aspects of life.

The good news is that you're very young, and have so much time ahead of you still. You just have to have to from now on go all in into making yourself a better, more interesting person to other people, so you can make some friends, get laid and all the rest.

Go to the gym, get a nice body. Practice some sports. Read non-technical books. Get a dog, take it to the park. Go to a club, hit on some chicks, hear a lot of no's. Make some friends, develop some social skills. Learn to dress well, shower daily, get a nice haircut, invest in beauty products. Travel, even if alone. Make some money.

Forget what you can't change about yourself and focus on what you can. Just my two cents.

Those "thief words" are part of a dialect, yes. A word being "forced" or "natural", whatever that means, has no bearing on this discussion, and neither your personal choice of using them or not.

I absolutely agree it's wrong to publicly shame someone to use this pronoun, but I don't agree with how you're framing the rest of the situation. Why is it that they're "indoctrinating" and not "teaching"? Also, if people are using this word it naturally exists.

You seem to accuse them of having an agenda, as if this is a bad thing on its own, but it's clear you too have an agenda of your own. But while theirs, misguided or not, is based on acceptance, what's yours based on?

I'm sorry but why are you so sure they're trying to avoid work? From my experience most women would love to have careers and be financially independent and successful. But babies indeed make it a lot harder -- both from a time/energy perspective and from a discrimination perspective.

And who is the judge of what is and isn't true? You seem to imply social network consensus is a safe ruler for what kind of speech should be allowed but to me it sounds absurd.

Maybe the problem is that you spent it watching TV?

I for one think changing human nature is harder than creating an appetite suppressing drug, and indeed it seems we arrived on the latter earlier. So if it works it works, right?

For people who are really sports fans (which might be a little out of the Hacker News audience, I know) not having your friends and family talking during the game might be a pro, not a con.

Do you have a source to the "ushered into the buildings" thing? Like, are you saying they didn't intend into storming the Capitol but were guided/leaded there by the security staff?

Also I think you're being unfair by ignoring the causes of both of the protests, as (IMO, feel free to disagree) one of them was directly supporting democratic and liberal interests and the other was directly against them. I don't think you can discuss the protests without taking into account what they were protesting.

I disagree. I loved Cameron's evolution, she really matured. And from season 2 onwards (maybe even after the first half of S01) they seemed to have a better grasp on who the characters were and what stories to tell. Cameron and Donna's relationship especially was simply beautifully told.

I read somewhere that the network was trying to create a new Mad Men, which fits a lot with the way Joe McMillian is portrayed. Thank god they went the other way: The drama was much better with the more relatable characters (the two female leads especially), and the technological narrative ended up more interesting without a Don Draper-like messianic figure involved.

What is the timeframe you imagine for us to see the first consumer BCI-based products?

Gabe seems to talk a lot about "inserting" data (like feelings) into the brain, instead of reading it. Is the technology really there already? Can we reliably read data from the brain (i.e. using it as input for a digital system)? And regarding inserting, what is the coolest thing you've done that you can share with us?