moistgorilla

You are implying that this is a gun problem and not a sociological problem.

Wait, so everyone that wants to own a gun is a terrorist? Please, if you want to live in a nanny state I don't mind but don't act like it's any better.

I think he meant low supply

this wasn't a sexist joke, if it was I wouldn't be saying nobody was harmed

It has nothing to do with the code of conduct considering that very code says that you are not supposed to take a picture of someone without their express permission.

From what I understand, she didn't stick to the code. It was stated in the code that no pictures should be taken without the express consent of the subject. Nobody cares about Adria writing on her twitter account that it's not cool to say stupid jokes. Nobody cares about PyCon organizers kicking the people out. What people care about is that she posted their faces online to 9000 twitter users which resulted in one of the people getting fired.

I said this in another post and I'm going to repeat myself here. Social media is powerful (look at the recent Steubenville fiasco) and if you are going to put somebody out to hang you better be right. Considering she is part of the pr group for her company (developer evangelist?) I believe she has an understanding of what a twitter account with 9000 followers can do.

>Isn't this exactly what happened though?

Also, don't try to play with words, she did that and more. The sensible response would have been to tell them to stop and then if they didn't, contact one of the staff. A post on twitter saying "Conference etiquette: Sexual innuendos about forking and dongles are not cool" without a picture would have been much MUCH more tasteful.

Context matters what you are trying to prove is a false equivalence. She chose to post them up on her personal wall of shame that has thousands of followers with a clear picture of both their faces and without their permission. Anyone with any experience on the internet understands how potentially ruining social media can be. Look at the recent Steubenville scandal (these people actually deserved it though). If you want to use something as powerful as social media as a tool for justice you better be ready to take responsibility if you are on the wrong side.

I also agree that the company that fired the person should also be held responsible for caving in to social pressure so easily. They are both responsible for the outcome.

I wasn't arguing against the fact that mental harm exists. I was arguing that harm implies that somebody was injured and a sexual innuendo involving dongles and forks is hardly offensive enough to injure somebody just like looking at someone the wrong way shouldn't harm someone in most situations. In a situation were someone is being harmed by something that is in most situations harmless (because they suffered some sort of trauma or they have a phobia) they should inform someone, not take up vigilante justice.

Also, although these jokes were sexual in nature, they did not have anything to do with sexualizing women, putting down anyone from any sex, or targeting anyone in particular as the butt of the joke. And seeing as how these jokes were not intended to hurt or upset anyone or where in any way threatening or disturbing I don't see how it could constitute harassment.

Taking a picture of two people without their permission and posting it on the internet eventually causing one of them to get fired doesn't seem like abuse to you?

Why didn't she tell them to just be quiet? That's what normal people do.

This wasn't the workplace first of all. This was a conversation (albeit a dumb one) between two friends. Last time I checked, I didn't need to worry about everyone's delicate sensibilities when I was speaking with my buddies. Also, she wasn't harmed, the way you are using that word takes away all meaning it has. She was offended. That's it.

I would understand if they were saying a sexist joke or saying a joke that perpetuated some stereotype but all they were doing was saying a stupid joke about dongles and forking. How could that offend anyone that wasn't looking to be offended?

She has thousands of followers. She is in a powerful position and she abused it. Just because she wasn't the employer doesn't mean her goal wasn't something along these lines. Why else would you post a clear picture of their faces up to a public lynch mob?

Who got harmed by this joke being told? No one, thus it's harmless.

I use it as my newspaper/video player/planner.

If I had kids I would like to know where they are. Maybe be able to do voice chat with the while they are in the car. Also, I imagine that cars will become media and productivity hubs like our smart phones or tablets. Cleanliness is also a factor.

I can't wait till the day I can have my self driving car drive me to work while I read a book and when it drops me off it goes to recharge it's battery, pick up my family from work or school and maybe when it's not in use I can rent it out as a cab.

That actually isn't a problem for the radar because it has 360 degree awareness. So if a car veers into your lane and you are wedged between two cars, instead of veering to the right the self driving car would slow down. So basically your argument is actually an argument FOR self driving cars. I imagine that if a self driving car is put in a situation where it cannot avoid an accident at all costs it could even manipulate the car to minimize the amount of damage that is caused.

That wouldn't happen because they aren't networked together for google's car. You are probably imagining that each google self driving car sends it's driving data to the cars around it and that is how they avoid accidents. That's not how it works though (although it would probably be useful in the future). The way it works is that the car has a giant radar attached to the top and it maps out a real time 3d map of it's surroundings which is uploaded to google's servers to update the world map in real time.

edit: Also to add, the reason that flash crashes happen is because the algorithms are unaware of what the other are doing (although it can try to guess). Also, self driving cars are designed to follow laws not beat the competition.

They already have an app, now they just need to actually sell stuff with it.

Pointless?

Two articles attacking two people that are held in high regard with link baity titles. I mean, come on, "Bill Gates is naive", "Nate Silver confuses cause and effect". This person is obviously trying to grab page views with whatever they can come up with. These articles could have been worded in much less offensive and aggressive ways but that wouldn't be conducive to the authors goal.

Keep in mind guys that this is the same person who wrote about Nate Silver confusing cause and effect. Which was also thoroughly wrong (you can find the reasons why it is wrong in the first post of the hn link). http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4949103 http://mathbabe.org/?s=nate+silver

I took it more as an absurd joke... I don't think he was seriously suggesting that someone would do this.

Seriously? How would this be more dangerous than current cellphones? At least with glass you can keep your eyes facing the road while gathering information and I'm pretty sure you don't need your hand to answer phone calls either (tilt your head.).

Also, they wouldn't be releasing a product that caused eye problems.

When I go to visit my family I would rather not have to wait hours to download a piece of software because my sister is watching a hq movie on netflix, my brother is voice chatting with a friend, and my mom is browsing cooking recipes on websites that load a video advertisement every 20 minutes.

I liked it, but I agree, not being to back into the hacker news comments in one click is frustrating.

Care to explain how "all Government is corrupt by definition"?

As a US citizen, the culture here is one of retributive justice. Most couldn't care less if the indicted person was reformed, what they care about is that they suffer. Watch any highly emotional event that takes precedence in American media like this weeks shootings. Look at how the public responded by calling the person the devil and that he should rot in hell for eternity. They don't even realize that their mentality is partly to blame for what is happening.

When I say killings I meant mass killings. I actually don't believe the amount of murder will decrease in the US. In fact I think it will increase just because of the fact that people wont be deterred by the idea of their victim being armed.

edit: was just about to edit into my post when I realized that I had actually posted it correctly.

The point I was trying to make was that when guns were banned in the UK people started using knives to commit crimes. Then they restricted access to knives too. Then they installed cctv cameras on every corner. This is not the type of world I would want to live in.

Why do you think access to kitchen knives was restricted in the UK? When people stopped having access to guns they started using knives for crimes. Guns have legitimate uses for self defense. What the object is made for is irrelevant, anything can be used to kill someone.