herbig

You lost me at "retarded." Learn the laws of social decency and then come back and have a discussion.

Right. But non bicyclists don't know that. Which is why the media always reports on whether a cyclist killed by a car was wearing a helmet or not, when it doesn't matter. It's just victim blaming on the part of the media.

Drivers don't suffer any consequences for killing people.

Cyclists should do what they can to increase their likelihood of not dying, but drivers should be legally obligated (meaning jailtime) if they kill someone.

I propose to make drivers more accountable for their actions.

If they kill a cyclist, they suffer repercussions. Currently, in the US at least, they do not.

Yeah, I agree. The only thing this has is being new and "cool." To me, it's just more inconvenient than wearing traditional stuff.

Bright blinking lights are the best way to increase visibility, and many people (in NYC at least) don't even bother with those.

A great game on HN to play with titles with question marks is to guess whether or not someone has mentioned Betteridge's Law yet. Herbig's Law says that within 5 minutes the chance is close to 100%.

And yet, Betteridge's Law does not apply here. Everything is an argument of some sort. It is impossible to completely divorce personal beliefs and biases from anything. The best we can do is recognize this fact and try to come close.

Of course being more visible is going to be safer for you, but let's not let this put even more of the burden of safety on the bicyclist.

If this catches on, riding at night without it will be considered as dumb as riding without a helmet, when really nothing is going to protect you from a two ton metal deathtrap coming at you at 20 mph or above.

No criminality suspected.

28 points (and counting) for a bullshit fluff piece absolutely filled to the brim with Amazon product links.

Tell people they can be fit with no effort on their part, add the word hack, bump up the upvotes with friend's accounts to get started, profit.

No

He should actually just give this a rest. The article does not contribute to the discussion, it just further plugs his book.

She was terribly wronged but no one else keeps bringing her up except him, for obvious financial gain.

If he has something new to say then great, but cherry picking ridiculous tweets out of thousands of them, many of them complete trolls, only gives voice to an obviously ignorant minority.

I'm a very liberal persion, but I really like Rand Paul. I just wish he didn't think gays were going to burn in hell for all eternity, or at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live.

The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live according to his religious beliefs.

Whether it's legal not to lock them up or not, your friend is a completely irresponsible gun owner and not too bright as well.

It depends heavily on your social circle and what state you're in. Being from upstate NY, I was raised around guns because my father was a hunter, but now living in NYC, almost no one I interact with has ever fired a gun.

The Android app is really choppy and slow, I couldn't get the voice search to work, and uses Android design themes/elements from four years ago.

I also had to create a Microsoft account in order to check it out for the 5 minutes I did so before it was summarily uninstalled.

The reveal where he was a ghost the whole time was incredible.

It's a British colloquialism.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I don't recall the Bible being mentioned in the comment.

The article also details Biblical figures with made up links to Glastonbury, but you have to get past the subtitle first.

Or New York Times articles about events in Syria?

The abstract doesn't mention a control group of non-siblings. I would think that would be a prerequisite for concluding anything.

I've just started checking out Fastmail as a result of this thread. I hadn't heard of it before but I'm really into it.

I've been trying out different email services lately in an effort to untether myself from Google, and this one seems like a really good choice.

I'm not into the iOS themed non native Android app though, but being an Android developer I'm more averse to that nonsense. It seems to work great and is really fast though. Does anyone know if there is a native app planned?

I'd be willing to pay a subscription for email if it's worth it. I'd love to hear others' experience with them.

The joke is right in the title folks. We all got it, no need to fill the comments with the same joke.

No it doesn't. The first study is relative to people in the past, the other study is relative to people in the present.

His first blog post was also mostly lifted from here:

https://community.smartthings.com/t/hack-the-amazon-dash-but...

I found that by Googling the code snippet, which the original author actually gives a shoutout for.

Will their website not be taking orders as well? I love REI, but this is a pretty transparent marketing ploy.

Also relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Day

As an Android developer I'd say this is far from typical.

However the statement actually isn't saying anything about Android development salaries, just that the language is Java.

There are a lot of low paying Java jobs but Android is not one of them.

"It’s precisely to protect the rights of cartoonists like Charlie Hebdo’s that governments deploy surveillance against potential terrorists."

This would be great if governments were surveilling only terrorists, instead of literally everyone, including their own citizens.

The article makes not justification for its title "the false trade-off betweent security and liberty." It only says it's ok because we don't hear about the attacks that are prevented. That's not good enough.

Yeah I don't think I'm backpedalling. I'm actually starting to question your sanity, but I guess we'll have to disagree.

Right. All I'm arguing is that making that statement does not amount to evidence of brain damage.

I don't understand the issue with that statement. You understand what "in practice" means right?

I'm not saying it's technically legal, just that the legal repercussions are so low that no one seriously considers them when choosing whether or not to smoke marijuana.

Is that not an accurate statement?

That's not really a crazy statement at all.

Marijuana is, in practice, legal in America.

Yes, this person is misinformed as to the number of ridiculous petty drug charges in America. Still not crazy.

And while I wouldn't say caffeine has "vitamin like" health benefits, since you know, the research on vitamins shows their health benefits are questionable, I would say the body of research on caffeine's health benefits is enormous.