Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | InitialLastName's comments login

Your concern isn't a resource issue, though. The resources exist, but so do the people willing to siphon resources to their benefit over the basic needs of others.

>Your concern isn't a resource issue

I don't like that way of framing it. I prefer to say that the US would need to spend additional resources (which seem prohibitive to me) to ensure that the nominal resources reach the intended recipients.

You're right in a sense. But I wonder, what does it mean to say "we have enough resources to provide for all humans" when human nature itself makes it impossible to provide for all humans with the resources we have now. Possibly with any amount of resources.

It's not a resource issue, but it's not an external factor either.

Don't do it: big blueberries are worse than little blueberries.

Boeing is about as close as a company can get to being a strategic asset for US national security. Functional passenger airplanes or not, I have a strong suspicion they will not be allowed to fail.

I like the argument that our time coexisting with neanderthals is the reason the uncanny valley exists: we have in the deep past had very good reason to be made uncomfortable by entities that almost, but not quite, seem like humans.

But then, when chimps and gorillas do something human-like, it inspires laughter and delight rather than discomfort.

What does it mean for Israel to win a war against Iran? Do you expect Israel to overthrow the Iranian administration, occupy a country with 10x its population, and then impose some sort of long-lasting stability on hostile territory, in a way they haven't been able to do in much smaller pieces of territory they've been occupying for almost 80 years?

I both A) don't believe you at all (would you rather shop somewhere you can easily find and access the product you're looking for, or where you have to track down an employee to dig through the clutter to find each item?) and B) feel we should note that Walmart's "ideal shopping experience" is not the same as the customer's. They want you (in the amalgamated, averaged sense) to traverse the store in a certain way, to select the right items, to be enticed to buy the other right items, and to leave without encountering so much friction that you decide to go to Target next time; those subtler effects are absolutely affected by organization and aesthetics.

I don’t believe that you don’t believe me, and I don’t think either of us will be able to present a compelling argument about the beliefs and preferences bouncing around in each others heads.

For good reason: if your priority is safety moving foward, you don't want people hiding information about incidents because they are concerned about repercussions.

The urge to a social-media-pedantry-dunk aside, did the title confuse you? Do you think your title or TFA's title gets the point of the article across clearly to a wider audience?

I'm reacting to what I view as poor science journalism.

The first sentence of the article is “Birds are the only dinosaurs left”.

The lede is what grabs eyeballs.

That's a helpful distinction. Another to add to that is that both classes of E(e)mbedded system are designed to be used with a single application (i.e. the user isn't running arbitrary software).

> Austin, TX is not NYC.

Correct. Parking mandates are even less sensible as a policy in NYC than in Austin, TX.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact