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

The bottom line is that whether or not Molyneux is any of the things he was accused of, kicking him off the service is a PR win for MailChimp. I don't think this disconnect between facts and accusations before punishing is a good thing, but the majority of people clearly don't care.


What was the park's plan for 2020? Close down? Change the name of the park? Without the glaciers, what would be the draw?


Glacier or no, it's a beautiful piece of nearly pristine land. I imagine they'd simply find other attractions (there are several possibilities) or focus on the hows and whys of the glacier's disappearance.

If you haven't, I recommend visiting. If you can't visit, have a look at some of the pictures taken by those who have.


The quality has to be good, too. I was getting "enough" sleep, but it didn't matter until I got some pills (trazadone) that really knocked me out.


The Ah! My Goddess clips showed a famicom disk card https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Famicom_Zelda_Disk.p...

Legend of the Galactic Heroes was a WORM disk: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41eTWeeR8XL...

I also owned a couple minidisk players, a real underrated format.


The papers detailing finding tunnels under the mcmartin preschool are not FBI papers but are taken from a book about the mcmartin trial by Ted Gunderson who is one of the primary proponents of the satanic ritual abuse theory. The investigation was funded by the families and none of the people involved are reputable. You can find another copy of the whole report here:

http://tedgunderson.info/index_htm_files/McMartin%20Scientif...

you will find the exact same pages as included in the finders fbi file. Even if you choose to believe the report, this demonstrates that it didn't actually have anything to do with the finders and in any case was not done for, or by, the fbi or police. it was (presumably) included in the file because it had similar claims to ones made against the finders.

I have read the entire finders fbi file. Repeatedly there are the fbi and police fielding claims that the finders were satanists, or that they were sexually abusing the children, but in every case they document they found no actual evidence of this.

the claim of an fbi cover-up was documented in the fbi file (that would be weird if you think about it) but this claim was made by a single junior member of the manhattan beach police, and is never repeated or corroborated anywhere.

the claim that the finders were tied up in the intelligence community seems to be based on uncorroborated claims as well. nothing in the document or linked resources supports it.

I hope you find this helpful, I had multiple of my friends bring up this fbi release as "proof" that SRA was real all along but after reading every page of the file I just don't think there's anything compelling in there.


I don't know how to fulfill this that makes every auditor happy, but so far what we're doing is, we have a restricted-access role on the db that denies access to certain sensitive tables, create a time-restricted temporary user for the developer, and then give them access to the read-replica.


This sounds like the right approach, and it’s similar to other companies I’ve worked at. The time limited nature is nice and presumably there is a audit log of some kind tied to that.


Every single overpriced Mac Pro I've seen sitting on a desk was bought with other people's money.


You're arguing that everything can be subject to exploration via scientific method, and he's arguing that some people reject this anyway. Here is a quote about an ideological split that happened in the anthropology community:

>The divide is trenchantly summarized by Lawson and McCauley (1993) who divide between ‘interpretivists’ and ‘scientists,’ or, as noted above, ‘positivists’ and ‘naturalists.’ For the scientists, the views of the ‘cultural anthropologists’ (as they call themselves) are too speculative, especially because pure ethnographic research is subjective, and are meaningless where they cannot be reduced to science. For the interpretivists, the ‘evolutionary anthropologists’ are too ‘reductionistic’ and ‘mechanistic,’ they do not appreciate the benefits of subjective approach (such as garnering information that could not otherwise be garnered), and they ignore questions of ‘meaning,’ as they suffer from ‘physics envy.’

cite: https://www.iep.utm.edu/anthropo/#SH4b


Not necessary. Science advances when entrenched proponents of the old theory die out.


As a contractor I used to construct special websites for both universities and government agencies. I would bring up in meetings "this site is required by law to be accessible" and invariably I was told "accessibility's not in the list of requirements". So in my opinion, they've had this coming for a long time.


While it's easy to say the site must legally be 'accessible', the problem I've encountered is that there is apparently no legal standard for 'accessible'. Section 508, WCAG, etc. do not have US caselaw behind them that actually identifies them as such.

From a practitioner's viewpoint, it might make perfect sense to target WCAG, and possibly consider anything less 'unaccessible'. However, from a legal viewpoint - which typically doesn't acknowledge any obligation or liability without precedent - it's a very different situation.

I'm curious if these tort cases can set that precedent, and clarify things for the lawyers.


In general courts look at standards IF you point the judge to it. The judge will look at the standard, and if it looks reasonable will accept it, thus creating precedent. If your website obeys a standard the other side needs to prove the standard isn't enough to meet the law. That is if you meet WCAG the judge will probably default to considering it a bug in the screen reader - putting the burden the screen reader to show that the standard is not enough for ADA, not only is this a higher bar, but the judge will generally cut you some slack for trying.

The above assumes there is only one standard. Standards bodies (ANSI, ECMA, ISO) often accept multiple competing standards. This happens when they are not aware of the other standard, or when they believe the standards can compete (C++ doesn't prevent you from creating an ISO standard for a different programming language).

Companies will often try to get their internal process encoded into a standard for this reason: it documents something that can be brought to court with more weight than something they came up with: if you sue latter the judge will ask if you care so much why didn't you get involved with the standards process when the company created their standard. Since part of becoming a standard is you have to take input from others this is somewhat reasonable.

The above is a US perspective from not a lawyer. Other countries have different rules. Talk to a local lawyer if you need legal advice.


In general US civil court judges will cut you some slack if you can demonstrate that you acted in good faith and made reasonable efforts to comply with the law, even if you are technically violating some rules. This applies to most sections of civil law, not just web accessibility.


A few years ago I wrote out the specs for the vendors who do our ebook conversions. This is a somewhat more limited domain than most web sites, but still, from the beginning I insisted on proper semantic markup, aria tags, etc. It was clear then that the reckoning would be coming. In fact, our vendor recently added DAISY validation, and we were the only client who didn't have to change specs. Now the university is handing down mandates, and how much do I have to do now? Nothing.


Any way to contact you? It sounds like you work in an a11y-friendly university, and I'd love to pick your brain about how you handle ebook accessibility in particular.


Numerous times in my career things have come to a boil because management refused to let me and my team spend any time on accessibility. Trying to convince middle/upper management to have compassion for the visually disabled is like pulling teeth. Which I think is particularly nuts since advances in TTS have made it generally useful to the visually capable as well (acclimatizing to the TTS voice has become easier, and so casual usage of TTS has become more feasible.)


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

Search: