thatoneuser

This is great! Walking through the numbers mentally kinda works, but it seems people are always suspicious they're being had. Seeing it live will be very reassuring.

Was just strolling through a park yesterday and walked across a duck with a big tag on each leg. Thought to myself that even in seeking nature, nothings natural. We know down to the family level what the animals are doing.

It can have it's upsides, but it's also disgusting in its own way. And just like you I thought to myself how I love analysis, but I don't have enough confidence in fellow men to feel ok with them doing the analysis.

Wow I guess I don't have nearly the knowledge of redis as many others here, but either way redis has been one of my favorite coding experiences! It works well, it's reliable, and it's very easy. Thanks so much for your efforts man!

"The majority of people dealing with cops are black"

Um, source? Using the link below, that's clearly not the case.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2

I'm sure there are bad prosecutors, but Netflix is hardly a source to look into something like this. They tend to make very compelling, but obviously biased, documentaries.

But I agree with your sentiment otherwise.

"You don’t get coordinated responses like that without planning and practice."

I disagree. That's what makes this so much more difficult. If it required planning and practice, we could find the meeting place and itinerary and correct it.

This is much more subtle. This is the kind of thing you can get when you group like minded individuals together and give them power. Without directly orchestrating, they pick up cues and work together.

It's like when a company hires a new person and there's no rule explicitly saying they have to work overtime, but they see everyone else doing it and soon they are too.

Not that I'm going to be the average user here, but I'm desperate to pay for a search engine that works like I want.

I've lost so many hours on google that the cost would make itself up. Just yesterday stuck in another gRut, looking for "what is X" to receive nothing but "how to implement X!".

Valuable hours lost every week. I'd happily pay for a search engine that just got it right.

"It does nothing to address why portions of the population feel so disenchanted they turn to hate."

To me this seems like the broader context that's necessary to actually decrease hate and hate related attacks. These are real people online posting things that really express their feelings about society. A ton of trolling too, of course. But these people aren't just going to go away or get healthy.

Maybe censorship is a good measure to reduce attacks, as it's harder for these individuals to organize and promote each other to act. But then again maybe this response is just the obvious thing corporate entities have to do to wipe their hands of it while we further decentralize hate and make it harder to monitor.

I don't know. I don't have the data and I'm certainly not advocating anything nor saying somethings bad. To me the conversation just doesn't intuitively lead me to believe that were attacking the right problem.

I don't see how it could be that dangerous assuming the doc first looked it over and couldn't find anything by hand. How would a tubing fork seriously hurt a small fracture if applied with skill?

You're spot on. To me this seems like an inevitable future caste system. Did you grow up anywhere less than pleasant (ie lower income)? You're probably going to have more "bad" things to say online when you're younger (or maybe even overall.) Because when you don't grow up with two high earning parents in a nice community odds are you're gong to be exposed to that stuff more and likely even have to adapt some of it to fit in. So then we'll see what we see now - elites raining down on the rest of society saying certain language is unacceptable - and strong arming a moral perspective to make opponents the bad guys.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not talking outright racism or threatening speech, im talking general fowl language, bitter truths that the privileged would rather not consider, etc. If you doubt this consider how much backlash trump gets for saying something like - Baltimore is a shit hole - and how the left spins it to say that makes him racist. Imagine that fire power directed at some humble small time politician in the future who could maybe actually solve local poverty issues because they know the reality of it, only to be pulled off the stage for using "bad language".

Maybe we'll collectively get over it on the individual basis but when major economies are hedging the behavior, I just see this as yet another tool for the haves to control the have nots and limit their ability to usurp power.

Unless you make this painfully transparent, a rational person would have to assume some intent of bias. No offense intended - I'm stoked you made this as its one of those tools I've always intended to make myself. But honestly, given the revelations of the last few years - unless we can verify as a community that there isn't bias, we have to assume there is.

A great example of this is AWS. I'm not a power user but I dabble. You have to go back and forth through user docs that all have some % of the correct steps, but no single doc has all of the correct steps. Some reference deprecated api, some just never seemed to work in the first place and you wonder how it even got there.

I get that these ecosystems evolve over time but I'm not convinced that that evolution requires inability to use the underlying features effectively.

Let me guess, everyone suffers from racism except white people. And white people are the only ones who can be racist.

I've learned a lot about HN today.

Oh trust me I smoke my share of dope.

So, when a business owner tries to protect his property, his son gets jumped, and then a university (which no doubt owes plenty of its success to govt backed loans) declares a witch hunt against him to the point where he loses business, employees and salary - it's going too far to call that despicable? Not calling any individual despicable, but the practice and mentality as a whole - that's not appropriate?

That's a pretty... Strange limitation IMHO. I sure as hell don't see a high level pattern that one ought to be following.

Please enlighten me as to what about my post is rhetoric rather than describing a position and backing it up with facts from this very article. You keep saying I'm doing this yet I can't really see what I'm doing beyond assessing a social phenomenon. Can you be more direct than referring me to nebulous guidelines? Because to me it doesn't seem constructive at all.

Fwiw I see posts all over that have the same "fire" that my post does which are top posts. Doubly so for posts that are people just talking their opinions out. Usually around opinion pieces of tech. Is this only different because it involves race?

You must be misunderstanding something here. This isn't "people on Twitter jawboning" - this is about an institution playing vigilante by deliberately and wrongly accusing a store owner of racism when all he did was try to protect his property. This is real life people losing their jobs and money because they dare to try and stop someone from stealing from them. Not even just the store owner but his employees. Quoting from yourself, this is about "keeping them in subservience" and making sure they "stay in their place".

If you really don't see that and want to continue with the racist apologia then by all means, it's a free country.

There wasn't just a demonstration (tho even that would be overdone considering the kid was shoplifting wine - which is a crime and it's not like he was just trying to get some food to survive.) This was deliberate and repeated attempts to libel a store owner out of business or into inane submission. Imagine if your family owned and operated a business for over 100 years, only for it to be dismantled because you rightfully tried to protect your property from theft.

Sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the same hate these colleges are peddling. No not all colleges do this, but 1/10 is too much. These are institutions which should be educating and enlightening, not promoting ignorance of circumstance and leading witch hunts.

It sounds like you're taking a very one sided perspective in evaluating this. The story is pretty clear - a black kid stole product, the owner tried to protect his product, the kid cried racism, the college called racism, the college encouraged and orchestrated protests, the college financially intervened by removing contracts with the business, etc.

Since when is someone not entitled to protecting their property? He didn't come out shooting a gun, he came out and got jumped. The school said it was racial profiling - even though no one denied it was theft. What side of the story is missing here? More personal testimony that the intervention was racially based? There's just nothing more to the story that could make this balance out.

I think your reluctance to take the facts at face value and instead say "well what if this really was racist" is exactly the indoctrination that schools like this have fostered. It's like back in the day when people did this kind of crap to ruin black businesses and thinking "well what if we don't know the full story behind their behavior?" Sure maybe there was a valid justification for the hateful behavior, but apply the logical razor.

Racism seemed to be getting a lot better about 10 years ago and since then it seems to have taken a turn. Now it's seemingly in vogue to hate on whites. Don't doubt that there are people out there who think that's a good thing, but consider that the next time the pendulum swings it won't still be the same race being targeted. Do we want to have another Jim Crow era in 2030 where we collectively hate blacks like is so popular to do to whites now?

The argument is "if you share it with friends you've abandoned the right to privacy cuz they can share it with others".

OK if that's how were going to play it then fb isn't responsible if a friend, of their own volition, shares it. However if fb says "you shared it now WE can share it" is a whole other game.

Regulate Facebook. They lied and said they weren't intentionally playing with people's dopamine to grow themselves. They're lying now (in a roundabout way). They're always going to lie. Why will they always lie? Because there's no accountability.

Regulate them. Force their hand. That's the only way we can stop creeping further into dystopia. They won't do it on their own and at this point no one should be comfortable with their practices.

I really respect people who work in impressive tech jobs who can admit this.

I'd assume it's corps blindly following metrics. "Apps with a chat feature increase engagement by 50%!!!". Hm well that correlates with more retention thus profit so let's do that.

I guess the unknown for me is are these bone headed moves overall the better choice? Are they getting more by flipping off people like here in HN or is the blind metric following actually losing them more than gaining?

If we're going to base his guilt off of the similarity in his actions to Manning then remember that Manning was pardoned. It would be pretty piss poor precedence to ignore that and charge assange in a different light.

Aiding and abetting is a lesser crime than the actual theft crime. Eliding those things into one is intellectually dishonest.

Further, the person who actually committed theft has been pardoned serving less time than Julian spent in the embassy. It makes no sense that he would receive any punishment at this point for the lesser crime.

Where your analogy is mistaken is he didn't steal anything.

You can't see how it's complicated? Not at all? No historical events pop out as "it's not normal precedence to arrest people in other countries for crimes in your country"?

I mean look at the international outrage when people from country A commit a crime INSIDE country B and country B punishes based on their own laws. The north Korea prisoner who was tortured and died shortly after release stands out, but there are plenty of other examples.

To just say "I don't see how anyone has a problem with this" makes you sound like a shill or someone trying to look enlightened, because it's not hard at all to see how this is complicated.

I'm not in the slightest surprised. Assange pissed off a lot of high level political/power figures in the US by exposing them.

Remember in 2016 when Clinton was accused of getting leaked debate questions? Personally I expected that to be the end of her run. At the very least for everyone to say "wow, she actually did that. A candidate should never be able to do that". Instead, assange was the bad guy. People who believed it were nutjobs. Bernie and trump were the "real" bad guys. No accountability - they just misdirected and anyone in Clinton's camp or even the anti trump camp said "well so?"

So im not surprised now that people are being led to this propaganda like sheep. Our populace has disgraced any sense of intelligence it may have had. We really cant look at our average citizen and think anything positive about their critical thinking.

Edit: Downvote if you can't provide any logical counter to what I've said. Nothing up there is untrue, but there are a lot of butt hurt Clinton fans still lingering I'll say.

This will be very interesting to see. Would this be the first big use case of crispr?

TV licensing authority? That sounds unnecessarily dystopian.

That sounds like something that works in theory but not at all in the real world.

Because media owners paid off enough law makers such that they have insane control over how people use their products. It's analogous to a car manufacturer putting a device in your car that will drive it back to the lot if you let someone else drive it. Except it's all over software - something that costs virtually nothing if lost.

This is only for the big guys tho. Little guys get screwed harder than before.