parenthephobia

> If he doesn't get off the plane what else are they supposed to do?

Refuse booking at the gate.

Not give seats that paying customers are already occupying to their staff.

Not remove paying customers using so much reckless force that they break their nose and teeth in the process.

Accept that they've made a mistake and send their staff in another vehicle.

It's not obvious to me what the difference between "real" and "fake" 2D is.

What is hard to do in Unity because its 2D isn't "real"?

FYI, the latest Linux editor is always linked-to from the last post in this thread:

https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/unity-on-linux-release-not...

Why they do this in a forum thread instead of having a link on the normal download page, I cannot imagine. It's no wonder you couldn't find it! :)

This is potentially a big win for me. I'm interested in Godot, but also wary of it because I didn't like the notion of a game-engine-specific language. I do like the idea of a MIT-licensed engine which works with <language of choice>, though.

I use Unity, and it's enjoyable to be able to use a widely-understood language, because of things like tooling, documentation, existing libraries. Obviously, Unity isn't perfect, particularly since being limited to .NET 2.0 often means being limited to libraries made for Unity or old versions of mainstream libraries.

Aside: Extending a game engine by linking in a shared library very much reminds me of making Quake 2 DLL mods.

> You can't do the work on Linux.

Although it is buggy, I use the Linux editor regularly. :)

> And their project format is locked to prevent you from opening a project that had just been opened in a newer version than the one you have

Related pet peeve: The Linux editor appends "Linux" to the project version, forcing a complete reimport of all the assets when moving between the Linux and Windows editors even if they're actually at the same version.

Most corporations are structured like ultra-authoritarian dictatorships. I'm not sure you want to use them as examplars of human governance.

You must know that the SWAT team didn't know they were part of a hoax. If there actually had been an armed hostage-taker then I doubt that many people would be saying that shooting him with rubber bullets was illegitimate.

Having said that: 15 of the 17 top-level comments on this thread are explicitly critical of the police in this situation, so I don't know how you you're getting the impression that we aren't allowed to hold them accountable.

Yes, but so does Rust. Reference counting is orthogonal to, although related to, to borrow checking.

Vala's wiki has a page all about its ownership mechanism: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/Vala/Ownership

Compile-time checking of owned and borrowed references was in Vala, a C#-inspired language for the GNOME ecosystem, four years earlier.

This seems flippant. If a car is fast we generally understand why. We don't need to worry that under some rarely-encountered combination of circumstances it will unexpectedly do a handbrake turn and open the fuel cap.

Almost all birds are killed and eaten. Birds in the wild don't die peacefully in their sleep. The real difference is what happens before they die.

> this animal is happy and thus does not want to be killed

You're assuming this as a premise, which I think may be the root of the problem. Plenty of people don't believe that livestock is intelligent enough to comprehend the idea of death, or really anticipate the future in general. How then would it have a desire about future events?

> Don't these two sentiments exclude each other?

Wanting something to be happy whilst not respecting its autonomy is common amongst humans, so I'd say no. Additionally, killing an animal humanely doesn't cause it to be unhappy, since dead animals are incapable of experiencing emotional states.

> But in practice there are a zillion things you believe not because of logic, but because other people told you to. > Red lights mean stop

The author ignores second-order effects. Red lights meaning stop is arbitrary, but I believe that I should stop at red lights not because I accept the arbitrary assignment, but because of the objective fact that if I don't I'll eventually end up in hospital.

> The most successful companies all use whiteboard interviews

The most successful companies all use bank accounts with million dollar balances. One shouldn't confuse cause and effect.

I've worked for a few (arguably) successful companies, and I'm firmly of the opinion that they are almost invariably pathologically averse to risk and unwilling to experiment with new ways of doing things, especially when those ways aren't used by their competitors.

Conversely, every such company seems to believe that their competitors are doing rigorous scientific analysis of business methods and so if their competitors are all using whiteboard interviews "there must be something in it".

> The most successful companies all use whiteboard interviews

Do Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon or Facebook owe their success to the quality of their developers, though? I would suggest that they do not. They may be relying on the wrong signals when hiring developers, not hiring the best, but still succeeding due to other factors.

Heck, Google made a new programming language designed to make it hard to confuse mediocre programmers. That tells me something about the average skill of their developers.

> The most successful companies all use whiteboard interviews

The most successful companies also have lots and lots of applicants.

Even if whiteboard interviews meant you automatically fail 50% of candidates because they're no good at them, that's not such a major problem if there are 100 candidates for each job. If ten of the candidates are top-class, you still have five of them left after half of them flunk the whiteboard.

OTOH, if you have 10 candidates, the likelihood increases that the actually superior candidate will be the one that flunks.

Humour is fine in principle, but good comments should attempt to further the discourse - e.g. expanding explanations, adding related information, explaining opposing viewpoints, making constructive criticism, fact-checking, or asking questions.

For example, it's very unclear to me what your original comment has to do with trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Assuming there is a link, adding an explanation might have improved its reception.

Perhaps there is a gap in the market for an independent rendezvous service that IoT devices and their controllers can connect to each other over.

Rather than baking in a dependency on the vendor of the specific device not going out of business, not stopping support for the device you bought, and not taking a dislike to you, you could depend upon an independent service that all (or at least many) IoT devices use.

Yes, I can get electricity from a different provider, or buy a new handle, or indeed get a new garage door opener fitted.

The problem is that a cloud-controlled garage door opener creates an unnecessary dependency on the continued existence - and good behaviour - of the vendor, unless one thinks that being able to open it from anywhere in the world is an essential feature of a garage door opener.

> Quantum uncertainty is a fundamental consequence of the underlying physics, it has nothing to do with influence from the measurement process.

If you can prove that, your Nobel prize awaits. :)

The truth is that nobody knows why there is quantum uncertainty. The common belief is that the uncertainty is "real", but non-local hidden variable theories have not been proven to be impossible.

(In a recent survey of physicists, 47% favoured explicitly real uncertainty - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.00676.pdf)

> the uncertainty principle states...

That the product of the standard deviations of position and momentum are at least half of h-bar.

It says nothing else about what that "means", the mechanism by which it comes about, or whether it is a fundamentally "true" description of reality.

It might be worth pointing out that as part of the joke they did actually make the app. You can download it, and it does have a convincing Windows 95 GUI.

> We can also give Georgia the benefit of the doubt

Something I might be inclined to do if they fixed the problem after becoming aware of it.

Did Georgia arrange a deal whereby its citizens can read the law of their land for free?

Did they declare the annotations were no longer considered part of the law?

Or did they spend tax-payer money on prosecuting somebody for having the temerity to make copies of the law?

I think it is not at all reasonable to give Georgia the benefit of the doubt.

> What's fair is that LexisNexis be compensated for the value it has added to that Law.

Nobody has an automatic right to be compensated for doing work.

Any right to compensation arises from people having benefited from that work, and from the receipt of that benefit having been voluntary.

Citizens of Georgia are required to obey the law. Judges use the annotations when deciding whether the law has been obeyed.

So, citizens of Georgia have two choices, risk breaking the law, or pay a third party for permission to know whether or not they are breaking the law.

LexisNexis's compensation is about as legitimate as that of a protection racket.

"Say, that's a nice law you have there. Be a real shame if someone were to... annotate it."

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13980272

This is a category error. Freedom of speech is not itself sabotage, but it is obvious that one can use speech to commit sabotage.

> Does a cartoonist have a duty to contribute constructively to a scientific discussion?

No, but neither does he have the right to not be called out when he contributes destructively to a scientific discussion.

It seems to me that you're conflating "open source" with "developed for free".

I don't think GP has any issues with Vivaldi being developed by paid developers per se, but if Vivaldi Technologies decides to stop development there is no guarantee that anyone else will be able to take over development. Firefox wouldn't have that issue if it started today.

What does that prove? Of the twenty least happy countries in the world, all are outside the EU.

I was involved with running a SaaS which also had issues with free tier signups.

Two observations.

1. Prioritise paying customers. Use spare provisioned capacity to provide for the free tier: don't spin up new capacity for free tier customers - or at least do it on your own terms. Now it doesn't matter if people milk your free tier unless you believe, almost certainly incorrectly, that these people would pay if they couldn't sign up for more trials.

2. We had repeat signups from gmail accounts, but almost none from disposable addresses as such. Any service that lets you have multiple email addresses for free is a potential "risk". That obviously includes any self-run email server, or any corporate email server from the perspective of a user allowed to add new addresses to their mailbox.

> Not to mention, your search in an ad-less world will simply return... ads. Because that's what ads are meant be: persuasive arguments -- salespeople calcified in text.

The last person I'd ask for advice about what to buy is a salesperson.

Besides which, in an ad-less world, how would a search return ads? :) It would return independent and unbiased product reviews.

> Let's take this ad-less world to its logical extreme ... design and paint every building so it's the perfect shade of uniformity; strike down any person that so chooses to wear any clothing but our perfect shade

This is not a "logical extreme"; this is a straw man that fell down a slippery slope.

> ads serve a purpose

The purpose of convincing me to buy things I wouldn't otherwise have bought, which they do by lying, misrepresenting, dissembling, and psychologically manipulating. (Especially Internet advertising.) I feel no obligation to support that purpose, especially when pursued using those means.

Nobody said it was: sed is a tiny perl.

> If you work in the private sector, where the primary reason for existing is to make a profit, your job directly or indirectly contributes to that goal.

I work in the private sector. I meet many people whose contribution to profit is, at best, indeterminable.

The primary reason for existing in the private sector is whatever the directors decide it is. That need only align with profit-making to the extent required to keep the company afloat.

Not only are directors not necessarily single-mindedly committed to profit above all else, even when they are they aren't omniscient. One way pointless jobs could come about is because directors are just wrong about how much manpower a project requires.

Another way pointless jobs arise is empire building. I think anyone who has worked in a company with more than a few managers has encountered employees who exist solely for the purpose of bolstering a manager's team.

Perhaps the manager straight-up doesn't care about the interests of the company and just wants the largest team. Or, perhaps they're forced to hire N people even if they don't need them lest they lose budget for when they do need N people.