mffnbs

I agree wholeheartedly with your “we want your car electric” line of thinking. I hate when electric cars try to look like what someone thought an electric car should look like. No one wants that.

I have the opposite problem in that the backup camera is perfectly visible even when partially obscured and the mirrors become almost useless with ice particles, fog, and water droplets scattering my perception through them.

If you simply played the game, you wouldn't know or care that the gays infiltrated it. You didn't play it because you researched a reason to not play it, and that reason just so happens to be homophobia.

I think if they gave you a number to bypass the general queue that you’re still vulnerable to an attack, right?

The only way to ensure you’re calling amex is to call the number you know, otherwise the scammer will have you call another one.

The bias in your summarization is fairly lazy. The article discusses feminism from a high level and of course there are nuances lost in the brevity. I’m not sure what your comment serves other than to stir the pot.

Chicago has a very heavy cab presence and yet you'll get a lot of strange looks if you're standing on your residential street with your arm out expecting to get a cab. They'll drive by when dropping people off, but you'd be standing there awkwardly for a very long time.

I can have an Uber at my door in < 3 minutes with two clicks on my phone.

Wow, that’s a real shit argument.

You can do the same with e2e encryption. It’s not secrecy, it’s literal 1s and 0s.

You still understand, though, that the colloquial definition being used here is what you're referring to as a "data race." Your comments are disingenuous in that I believe you know that you're being pedantic, I just don't know why you've brought it up the multiple times.

Seems your understanding is drunk and lost all of its tact earlier in the night.

(i.e., write those pesky $125 payments off)

What does that mean? As far as I know, you can't just announce that you're "writing off" debts and have them magically disappear.

I would so much rather lose my twitter account where:

a) I don't use twitter, so it's a loss of minimal proportions

b) It's twitter's fault and easily prevented by them

Sure, a) won't be applicable to all services because there are services I actually use that my life revolves around. However, the only service I can think of that would disrupt more of my life than losing my phone number is verified 2FA secured and does not have this vulnerability.

I would actively avoid a carrier that promotes this policy and think it's naive to assert that it's even remotely viable.

Your argument ignores that 2.7 was held onto for a decade. Legacy applications did not hold back adoption.

Apple isn't interviewing you to spy on you.

The brainwashing and social stigmas are a result of racism.

Reddit investigators are not sources.

Really? I feel like that's been going on for about 5 years or so now

Wow, this was recent, too.

That destroyed company? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signet_Jewelers

Your comment is oddly confrontational and assumes a lot. Also relies on a societal change that the parent commenter is by no means responsible for.

This is just how assisted machine learning works. The model needs to be updated with corrected annotated data that its gotten wrong in the past. It needs to have enough of this data until the model accounts for it properly so that it begins to prioritize the corrected label instead of the incorrect one.

You're not going to be able to go in and hand-fix the model so that it doesn't cause these errors. This is one of the biggest ongoing issues with convolutional neural networks - you cannot debug them to determine why something went wrong.

Why isn't this considered more seriously? The pirate bay wasn't selling torrents ffs, but they were targeted to hell and back.

I read the story and honestly don't see that the writer is at fault. Sure, criticize the woman for not knowing better, but that's where her blame stops and Amazon takes the rest.

I've already been banned from reddit, please don't ban me from this site. How will I debate the merits of plastic making trans people gay, men's rights, programming languages that were created before 1990, startups that have clear business value but discussing how they don't have value to a small subset of society, overvalued IPOs, etc, etc etc.

It is not factual that fraud happens on a scale the warrants disenfranchising voters. If you advocate for disenfranchising voters without providing any sort of argument that legitimizes doing so, then yes, I absolutely am accusing you of wanting to disenfranchise voters for no reason other than to fear monger. You're the TSA of airport security. The WMDs of war. The daily weather of climate change. The fucking pizza of sex trafficking.

You should be banned from this site for spreading this fucking nonsense.

Depends on what you consider to be worse, I guess. On reddit you get many of the blatant fucks. The 4chan memers, the blatant racists, the unabashedly sexist incels. They all know who they are, what they're doing, and they practically do it for fun.

On hn, you seem to have the same demographics, but they either have no idea about what they're actually saying or they're smart enough to argue that it's okay and sound like they've almost made a legitimate argument.

You could just not do any of that and be fine.

I see you've never developed in Java if you think that comes 'no assembly required".

On the contrary, you've just put words in my mouth because you've done some logical leaps in your head that just took you away from reality.

In reality, if you want to make an assertion and have other people convinced of your argument, then your obligation is to provide all the facts. Given that, you cannot simply take the inverse hypothetical situation where election fraud is just assumed and use that to form your argument. We still have yet to establish that fraud is happening. So why would we want to suppress votes to prevent something that doesn't happen?

I was taking issue with the characterization that the US is dystopian based on voter id arguments. You don't need an id to live in the us, you don't need one to vote in many states, and the contexts in which you would need one make sense.

If you contrast that to a country that has government mandated ids just because, then that's clearly the more dystopic example.

Right, I was making the assumption in this case that a driver's license would be sufficient for voter identification and that if someone didn't have a driver's license, then obtaining one or an equivalent is a burden that many poor people cannot afford.