usea

It's not a strawman. If the state disallows you from murdering your child, they have authority over you. There are court cases every year where parents who kill their kids get convicted and sent to jail. Who had authority? The people who went to jail, or the people who sent them there?

> I'd rather have a distributed system of parents putting a majority of their time and attention into figuring out what's best for their own kid -- rather than a bureaucratic state that's playing politics and influenced by lobbyists, deciding what's probably best for the majority of the kids.

I would rather have the state disallow murdering children rather than each parent deciding for themselves if they should be able to murder their kid. Maybe you had great parents, but not everyone is so lucky. Sometimes parents don't do what's best for their kid. In those cases, it's better for the state to use their Ultimate Authority to intervene in the interests of the child.

Stopping people from killing their children should be uncontroversial.

> The question is who gets the final say in how the child is cared for - if the parent thinks that something is harmful to the child, and the state says it's mandatory, who gets final say?

The state gets final say.

On most parenting matters the state has no opinion, or at least has the opinion "let the parent decide." But that delegation of authority does not mean the state has given it up. We the people have authority in the matter in how you parent your child. We will go to such lengths as taking the child away and raising it elsewhere if that is what's best for them.

People don't get to murder their children and get away with it.

Either parents should be allowed to kill their children on a whim without consequence, or parents are not the ultimate authority over their children. They are mutually exclusive beliefs.

Children aren't property. They're human beings that deserve the protection of the state. Sometimes that means protection FROM their parents.

That's true. If you're already in the business of hurting people, then it's a good way of identifying those you're trying to hurt.

I pass no judgment here. I only mean to admit my incorrect assumption.

There is no reason to block them, and doing so hurts people.

HN is not in "the field," and if it's trivially researchable then you can include links to it yourself. It's not constructive to demand other people are read up on research before interacting with you here.

> Makes me wonder how YouTube channels like Linus Tech Tips are able to seemingly hire around one-hundred full time staff?

Linus Tech Tips posted their youtube revenue just the other day[0]. For posterity, it's about 4.6 million, and only shows March-December. I can't find the original tweet that is the source of this information.

[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/100fmgx/linu...

It's still a violation of privacy even if you inform them that you're going to do the violating.

It's not reasonable to demand people do legwork if they want to reply to your naked claims. This is not a forum exclusively for people who are well-versed in the research you're familiar with.

Even in that scenario, the people making that threat are not actually in control. The ones with control are choosing to do this, rather than lose money.

These people are not forced to make more money at the expense of others. It's their choice.

Being uninformed does not mean one deserves crimes committed against them. The fault lies with those doing the stealing, not the victims of theft.

Scope and feature creep has nothing to do with customers. It happens in all creative endeavors, most of which do not have anything like customers. It happens in art, music, hobby programming, event planning, etc etc. Everything.

If you sit down to try to write a program that no one will ever see but yourself, you will have to fight against feature creep. It comes from the creators themselves. It's basic human nature to find it easier to desire things than to restrain oneself.

You're trying to place blame on drivers of certain types of vehicles, and make a distinction between the behavior of those drivers and the "rest of us", putting them in an "other" category. This is misguided and ineffective.

Even people who drive small cars do so in a way that they believe to be safe. Even people who drove before "modern SUVs" existed did so in a way they believed to be safe. Drivers of SUVs are not the ones risking the lives of others, while the "rest of us" are being safe and responsible.

When car accidents are as common and tragic as they are, the fault isn't with individual drivers. Drivers try to drive safely, and generally do their best under the circumstances. They're just regular people, like all of us. The fault is with the system: road design, vehicle design, incentives (city design, etc), and education.

Most people drive at a speed that they deem to be safe. Conditions such as road shape and size, and traffic, are the biggest factors that influence this. If you want people to drive more slowly, you should first figure out why you want that. If you're still determined, then you should figure out why drivers believe those speeds to be safe on that road. Changing the road conditions will change the speed at which people drive.

I also hate spotify's applications, but apple should not have any say in what software users can run on their devices.

Rendering things (~textures) already happens entirely locally. It has never been any other way. Also, intelligently rendering things at different resolutions in different scenarios is ancient technology at this point [0].

Roughly speaking, the only thing that's happening over the internet in a multiplayer game is communicating information about players such as location and discrete actions performed. Small numbers about the state of the game, not graphics or textures or anything like that. When you move, the 2999 other players need to know where you moved to, or where you are now. This has to happen many times per second to create a believable simulation. Even just sharing things like "I moved 2 inches in this direction in the last 30ms" or "I pulled the trigger of my gun when pointing at this angle" between 3000 participants is extremely challenging. It is heavily affected by the particulars of the game design, too. A turn-based game has to communicate a lot less often. Games that can guarantee no interactions between certain segments of players can reduce the information as well. Many game designs require that all players have up-to-date information at all times, or that things don't happen out of order.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail_(computer_grap...

Lying to people in order for them to send you money is fraud.

Duped users are victims of fraud.

I also enjoyed the square dollars example.

A type system is merely a tool to encode information to help better model things. If you want to prevent multiplying dollars together, types can help you do that. If you want to enable multiplying dollars together, types can help you do that, too.

A type error.

A relative of mine has applied to work there. He told me in all seriousness that he wanted a place where women couldn't get away from him. Thankfully, he was not selected.

Losing a second factor is an underappreciated threat. Adding 2fa can definitely increase the risk of losing an account, and a responsible person will weigh the costs and risks of doing so.

You can reduce that risk, e.g. by keeping a piece of paper safe somewhere, but it's never gone entirely. What if your house burns down? Oh, a fire safe. What if that gets stolen? A safety deposit box, etc. Those all have their own risks and costs as well.

It's completely reasonable to not add 2fa to your accounts, if you believe that your ability to keep safe a second factor is less than the chance of someone guessing your password.

I have lost (/stolen/destroyed) more physical possessions than I have had accounts hacked. By a lot.

Here's a sequence of events that led to me quitting a job:

- The owner/CEO of my company met with another local business owner and sold them on us doing some custom software work for them. He gave them an estimate during the meeting, and made a handshake deal.

- Owner tells a PM at our company about the project. Usual project kickoff stuff happens where the PM organizes a team and schedules a meeting with the client, etc.

- PM sends a meeting invite to a dev (me), a designer, and a QA, to meet at the client's office for the meeting.

- The owner of the client company does a similar thing, and at the meeting is 3-4 employees who know a lot about their business and the needs of this project. We talk for 2-3 hours and have a pretty good idea of what they need.

(details: The company operates a fleet of temperature sensors. They currently subscribe to a service that alerts them when a thermometer reports values too high or low. They don't like the software and don't want to keep paying for it, and want us to build them a replacement. Basically to collect a bunch of data from devices in the field, parse and store, send sms/email based on rules configured on a web app, and also have some really basic reports viewable)

- The team (4 people, including the PM) play agile games for a few hours, coming up with narratives and points.

- I get to work. Get access to the data, find a japanese manual online for the devices that describes the format of the data, set up a web app, database, user management, data download/parsing, a polling and alerting service. Lots of parts unfinished, but it's technically functional. Less than one week has passed (and my time is split across multiple projects).

- Project is put on emergency hold. Client found out how many hours we had spent, and was pissed. Apparently the person writing the check was told by our owner that it would be like 10-20 hours of work. That was never communicated to the employees at either company. The requirements gathering meeting exhausted the budget all by itself, unknown to everybody present.

- The PM is fired.

- The owner schedules a 1-on-1 meeting with me, where he spends 40 minutes describing the concept of database tables and rows. His thinking is that if I had only known how to store things in a database, the project wouldn't have taken me so long. Fortunately he gets a phone call and abruptly leaves.

- The client was apparently paying $20 a month for their monitoring software.

Vote for candidates that support stronger consumer protection and data privacy laws. Do not give your personal information to companies that do not directly need it for the service you're engaging in. Delete your facebook accounts yesterday.

Services that require a phone number like twitter, discord, blizzard, signal, twitch, etc are giving you a heads up that they're abusive and will work against your interests. Stay far away.

> an older designer should have a rolladex full of people who they worked below, beside, and above over the course of their career

As a non-traditional professional in a lot of ways, I've found these kinds of assumptions at the core of a lot of discrimination (age and otherwise). A person should be judged based on their skills/value, not based on where someone thinks they "should" be in their life based on stereotypes and bias.

Expecting a person to be a certain way due to their age is harmful to them.

My formative years all have tracked music as their soundtrack, and I still listen to them regularly. Many of the people whose music I enjoyed back then are still making new music as recently as this week, including several you mentioned. Many artists were accessible on IRC, and the community was at least as good as the music. There were lots of opportunities to form lifelong friendships with great people.

> Please read the articles before commenting on them:

You don't have to read an article before commenting. Trying to make up rules and hold other people to them is neither kind nor constructive.

Your interpretation of their post is not charitable.

It's explicitly against the guidelines to accuse someone of not reading the article.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I genuinely don't understand this quiz. The very first question starts out by saying that cults have leaders, and then asking "Is your leader the ultimate authority of your group?"

What leader? What group? How do I answer "Not applicable" or anything other than confirming that I'm in a cult already. Isn't this just begging the question?

All the questions are like this. How am I supposed to know if I'm in a cult if all the questions presuppose that I'm already in one?

Yes, it's okay. No, it's not petty and spoiled.

You don't need anybody's permission to reject a job for any reason. Don't let people pressure you into serious commitments. If you don't want to work with Teams for $X, don't do it. You shouldn't care what other people will think of you for not taking a job.

The opinions of people who would judge you for this decision are not worth considering.

How can I use this without a phone or phone number at all? If I am concerned about privacy, why would I give them that access and information when it's not necessary for the service? Surely they are only trying to gather information on their users. Whether it's being sold, breached, or used for ad targeting, I am not interested. It comes across as a scam.

I cannot take seriously any claims made by the company or its employees / owners. None of it can be used as evidence of their goodwill or what they do with my data. They have an interest in deceiving me.

I bought ff6 when it was released for the snes and I've played through it many dozens of times over the years. My last two playthroughs were with the Brave New World mod, and it's truly fantastic. It's become my favorite way to play the game, and I don't plan on going back to the vanilla game anytime soon.