pelliphant

As a european that statement just seems disconnected from reality.

I understand that it is how many americans view the world, but claiming that the society that I live in can't possible exist is... disheartening.

I think that the trick is to use a monitor/commercial display instead of a tv.

I just bought a gigantic computer monitor and connected it to my apple-tv, problem solved.

sure, the monitor was atleast 25% more expensive than a similar screen with a smart-tv function in it, but I think it's worth it.

no, I live in Sweden... =)

Thinking of buying a fairphone and using e on it, but I have a question about apps, and thought hackernews might know:

I don't need that many apps, but the few I do need are very specific, such as the local public transportation app, and bankID from my bank.

Can I just download those from the normal google app store?

I'm also in the neither group.

I think that "reddit style" commenting brings out the extremes in people, everytime I actually talk to someone face-to-face they seem to be less extreme than what they appear to be on the internet.

I haven't heard that argument since I was a teenager, would any serious adult today use the argument that we shouldn't use tool X because other people, including people we don't like use them?

True, it's not only an american problem, but the point here is that, that I consider to be a central part of the setting is missing.

But sure, if we were talking about historical games set in europe, there would probably be things missing that paint europe in a bad light... But that's not what we (or atleast I) are talking about here.

European perspective because I'm european.

What I'm trying to say is that I can see why americans see it as a sensitive issue, but as a non-american it would makes as much sense to remove indians or the parent country from the game.

from an european perspective: removing slavery as a central component of the colonization of america seems like revisionism.

That's one awesome PR-trick!

From my own experience: when I comment on something that I haven't read it's usually because I'm more interested in the conversation around the subject than the subject itself. So, in that case, I have usually read the comments, and if half of them just randomly included the word "bananas" in them, I'm pretty sure that the convesation whould change to be: "wtf are ppl saying bananas all the time?"

That.. actually makes sense.

Yes, and also, sometimes made as a joke, even hitler got nominated.

Besides that, it's somewhat insulting to group assange with snowden and manning.

They where real...

Sure, the attention they got where overblown.

But let's not act like assange wasn't acting like an asshole... Or that the charges where dropped because of reasons related to if he's guilty or not.

I'm not saying that I think that it is probable, but if one where to look at other civil wars in history, would they all really be that different from current america?

Are you still trying to find logic in trumps actions?

The popular opinion on reddit seems to be that this is just trump being told that tiktok users where responsible for his failed tulsa rally, and personally, that explanation seems just as likely as any of the other explanations given here...

ok, thnx for clarifying.

somewhat of a rust noob: but as I recall there is a difference between string and array of chars.

string use utf-8, which is 1 byte for the most common characters.

char is unicode

Well, the current ruling party in america is followers of an ideology that historically have been centered around opposing democracy and secularism.

Reducing public education is arguably the most effective strategy for acheiving both those goals, so, is it really that surprising that they have a long history of opposing the scientific consensus?

+1.

serious media outlets generally don't name suspects untill they are convicted.

This is a rule that we as a society have established after generations of experience with how media works.

Then we get "social media", and all the old rules get thrown out... So, how long will it take to reinvent the same rules for this new platform?

I did it in ms paint. =) so, there is no .svg code for it.

was wondering why the duck got no eyes...

so i tried adding them:

https://imgur.com/a/J4WodSk

Now I know why...

It is a central part of my personal philosophy, so, for me it's pretty much an axiom.

That being said, sure, sometimes you have to explain why you consider something to be an axiom.

But at the same time, if you where to explain your axioms all the time you wouldn't get very far. So, I guess the question here is: Is it reasonable to assume this axiom in this context?

And I would argue that it is reasonable, otherwise it would be an entierly different text, about a very different subject, and for me personally, it would be a less interesting article.

Isn't "banning anyone who displays a swastika" a method of enforcing "banning swastikas" ?

well, this isn't something that I have given that much thought...

But yes, when I go to ddg and type in "!g <thing>" after having typed in "<thing>", I'm on some level hoping that this is somehow informing ddg that their search results for <thing> could be better.

Now, if they have somewhere stated that they are not going to do this, then yes, it would be bad.

True, it is better

but.. that is obvious?!?

If I don't want ddg to know what I google, ofc I won't do it by typing in !g in ddg...

I actually use bang functions because I want to help ddg out by informing them when I'm unhappy with the results I got from them.

wow, didn't know that, thnx for the heads up.

Time to check what my ubiquity router is up to once I get home from work.

Thank you, this is the response people here want to hear.

And if this gets fixed in a reasonable timeframe, this is just one of those "everyone makes a mistake one in a while"-things, no big deal.

I disagree, or maybe we read different responses, but the ones I read where more critical of how (a) ddg (employee) handled this.

Didn't see anyone claim that this was on a google-level of bad, more like pointing out that google started out as a small company wanting to "do no evil", but slowly turned into what it is today.

Is it really that weird that people are worried that this might be the first of many small steps down the slippery slope?