mfringel

"unethical" and "clever" are not mutually exclusive.

But Killing Someone With A Lawn Chair Is Still Non-Intuitive.

-mfringel

Intent is not magical, and does not make things retroactively okay.

If one can look at the results, see the net effects, and then not do anything to fix it, one's intent doesn't matter.

To the simple son, you will say "Because enough people upvoted it."

Nearby is the DARVO concept: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/DARVO

"DARVO is an acronym that stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender." [capitalization mine]

Cashless transactions require a third party to give permission for the transaction, typically in real-time.

It's completely normal to be "basically okay" with that... I use cards/apps to pay on a regular basis. However, it's a long haul between "okay with cashless transactions being a popular payment method", and "eliminating cash."

In general, if an executive says "The future is X", a good first translation is "My life will get a whole lot easier if X is true."

"I'm shocked you're shocked" is just fancy-grade despair.

You can hammer nails with a firearm, but I'd hardly call that the most effective tool for the job.

No, he chose it because a group of interns was harassing other interns.

Words matter.

Dynamite is only interesting because it burns very quickly, in an energetic reaction. Things burn all the time, so I don't see why dynamite is all that interesting.

Evaluating something based on its known external traits without discussing the context in which they're used is an incomplete assessment.

A tool's purpose is what it's used for.

This is not about your expectations. This is about the expectations of a user who knows that VPN stands for "Virtual Private Network", and that the feature has the word "Protect" in the title.

FB creates the expectation of privacy by using those terms, and they (or you) don't get out from under that expectation by splitting hairs.

You assert "if the problem is low contributions, that is not the fault of the 401(k)", but that conjunction doesn't hold.

To wit: is it possible that the requirements for participation in a 401(k) are such that fewer and fewer people can actually contribute to one for a significant period of time? In that case, low contributions would be a result of the 401(k)'s structure, and your conjunction's consequent would be false.

I'm not sure why anyone owes you that data. Can you elaborate?

No doubt. I'd still like to option to have high-endurance handled transparently in firmware.

Being able to set it up as 10TB with 3x the life would be even better, because it makes other write-intensive applications feasible with an SSD, with the firmware handling the wear accounting in the background.

ETA: Specifically, having the option to do so, and having it happen transparently in firmware.

How much of this is relevant to other people who are not Justin Kan?

You didn't say "responsibility", you said "personal responsibility". "Personal" implies that they should take sole responsibility for their circumstances, ignoring any other agents involved.

So, yes, it does appear you're talking about right and wrong.

How do we know what she says is false?

How do we know that she is a person?

How do we know that China is a country?

How do we know what a tweet is?

You're right. There are many assumptions we can make here. Can you say why you chose that particular point of abstraction?

Your usage of "just" implies an ease of action that is incongruous with the parties and the conflict.

The legislators themselves, as per the oath taken by every legislator in North Carolina, as noted in the NC State Constitution: Article 6, section 7.[1]

Sec. 7. Oath.

Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath:

"I, _______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as _______________, so help me God."

[1] https://www.ncleg.net/legislation/constitution/article6.html

In an elected legislature, the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.

If the sitting legislature changes the districts in order to choose their voters, we move away from the ideal of an election.

I'm not aware of any reason being relayed to the person being downvoted. What leads you to believe that that was the reason you were downvoted?

Alternately, your definition of "fluff" was everyone else's definition of "required communication." A short reply can still be ambiguous, which requires clarification, which then wastes time.

Given your many bad reviews, do you think it might be worthwhile to revisit your data?

[citation needed]

Because someone submitted it, and people upvoted it.

That's not what I get from parent's comment.

I think the parent was implying that large telco interests have a dubious track record when it comes to the balance between investing in capacity vs. rent-seeking.

Do you like the act, or the result?

That is, do you like "seeing people actually called on their BS"? Or, do you like people stop doing BS things as a result?

IMO, the latter is much more interesting than the former. Being a 100% Alice guarantees the former, but does not guarantee the latter.

"Saint or GTFO" is a poor tactic against even the most minimally aware opponent.