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

Datum:

I am always happy to see them.

They work great for me on desktop Chrome with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus enabled, and they work great for me on ipad and iphone Safari with no adblocking enabled.


It only works because you happen to not be using a dns server that hides your ip & location from the destination (cloudflare usually).

It has nothing to do with desktop or mobile or chrome or firefox or ublock or dns over https etc.


Yes, Jimmy Hoffa is a "famous" disappeared person case here in America.

There are only a few "famous mysteries" that became such widespread memes in American culture. The ones I can think of are:

1. What happened to Jimmy Hoffa (who killed him?). "The Irishman" on Netflix is a Scorsese adaptation of a "nonfiction" book that documents an old Mafia hitman claiming to have killed Hoffa. (The book is nonfiction, the guy's claims are somewhat contested.)

2. What happened to Amelia Earhart? (Early female aviator who disappeared attempting to fly around the world).

3. What happened to and who was DB Cooper? (A man hijacked an airplane, traded some hostages for a duffle bag of cash at an airport when such a thing was possible, told the pilots to fly to Canada and then jumped out of the plane with a parachute and the duffle bag somewhere over the pacific northwest).

4. Who shot JFK?


Thank you, I regret picking such a reference. Amazing to entertain that the guy who killed Hoffa could have lived long enough to write about it. As if reality suddenly became gentler, and all differences could be hugged out.


Also, in the UK (or not), Lord Lucan


> If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died.

It's definitely not _equally_ shitty. It's arguable whether it's shitty at all. For an action to be a shitty thing to do, someone must suffer as a result.

I can see a couple of ways to argue that the author's beneficiaries might suffer, and perhaps even that the author themself might suffer depending on your religious beliefs.

But surely it's not anywhere close to _equally_ shitty.

I am firmly on the side of releasing everything. Great works of art are so incredibly valuable (to the culture) that the chance of finding one that might have been missed trumps these other concerns.

GP mentioned that most of Kafka's best works would have been destroyed if his stated wishes were honored (it is debatable whether these were his actual wishes).

A web search turns up that Monet destroyed a lot of his works before he passed.

How many Aeneid's are we 'missing' because the author was successful in destroying their unfinished work?


> For an action to be a shitty thing to do, someone must suffer as a result

Does somebody suffer if you urinate on the grave of a random person who died a hundred years ago? Is it a shitty thing to do?


> Does somebody suffer if you urinate on the grave of a random person who died a hundred years ago?

If the intent is to insult a group of people or that person’s descendants, yes. If not, honestly, no. Which is why we generally chase drunk teenagers out of graveyards instead of jailing them.


Nobody suffers, but it might be indicative that somebody is a shitty _person_ who might maliciously or carelessly cause harm in other ways. (Obviously intent matters here, because would we ever consider it "shitty" to unknowingly urinate on an unmarked grave?)


Society as a whole suffers because of the disrespect shown. Every person committing the act you describe edges society marginally closer to a world in which little respect is shown at all.

(I acknowledge this is specious!)


It is a shitty thing to do, but there is nothing particularly special about the fact that it is a grave, or that there is a particular person involved.

Society suffers, because people do not wish to be subjected to the sight and smells associated with urination.

A cemetery is usually something of a public park, of sorts. Urinating on a random grave is around the same order of shittiness as urinating on any part of a public park meant to be appreciated or contemplated by people.

If the grave of the random person matters a lot to you, ask yourself, would it matter if the headstone were not there? Would it matter if you did not know there was a grave there?

Every time you urinate on the ground, you are urinating on the remains of millions of people.

With every breath you take, you are inhaling the remains of everyone who has ever been cremated longer ago than it took for their burn gases to homogeneously mix in into the atmosphere (which really does not take very long).


I would still argue that this is not music.

It's definitely Art, in that it is making a statement, provoking a response, etc. But, it's just a nearly continuous sound, except for the pitch change every few years.

It's a Sound, but it's not Music.

If you were to argue that it is Music, I would ask, "Which part of the piece is your favorite? Why do you prefer it to the other parts?" Trying to answer these questions with a straight face becomes difficult.

If this is Music, then is it possible to make an art installation which has making Sound as its primary focus, and have it not be Music?


My opinion has always been that intent is what turns something from sound to music, or from non-art to art. I might pose the question back to you. At what tempo does the piece go from being music to being sound?


>If this is Music, then is it possible to make an art installation which has making Sound as its primary focus, and have it not be Music?

Yes.


What did she say on social media that makes a six year prison sentence justified?


It's not a question about difficulty, it's that nobody really gives a shit.

I'm sure everyone on this site knows that it would not be difficult at all to implement this.

Perhaps there is some valid legal concern over remembering minors' data, but if so, you can pretty easily come up with another dozen examples of sites elsewhere having similar issues with non-sensitive data.

The problem is that you usually have to have someone who is actually passionate about the product to drive all these little things home. Maybe this was a bug that was the next item on their backlog, but then someone in the chain of command said "it's good enough now, ship it.", and then everyone got moved on to the next thing.

Almost everyone at most companies, at all levels, is just doing a job. Very few people actually care about the product.


Was the patent technically nonobvious? The concerns in this seem to be saying it can be hard to overcome organizational and legacy friction instead, as far as I can tell.

I never heard of anything nonobvious at the time either.


Is it possible to point out that you disagree with something without being rude or aggressive in speech?


How was he rude or aggressive? He just said what he saw: shit code he'd have to maintain and he clearly didn't want to.


Add the toggle. When a Rio de Janeiro customer clicks the toggle to request doorstep delivery, pop up an error dialog saying that doorstep delivery is not available in this area for driver safety.

With this setup:

The feature exists if the company wants to support it in certain areas.

It is not supported in RdJ and other dangerous areas.

Expectations are clearly communicated.


“Triggered” implies an emotional or irrational overreaction to some stimulus. Describing your opponents as a “cult” also implies that they are non rational.

The GP described opposition to his argument, before it was presented, as coming from triggered members of a cult.

If this is not poisoning the well, what changes to his argument need to be present for it to cross over the line?

How much more clear does it need to be?


> The GP described opposition to his argument, before it was presented, as coming from triggered members of a cult.

And to rub salt into the wound, he then went on to describe his preference as "the most correct".

I wonder what he primarily programs in.


> I wonder what he primarily programs in.

Let me dissipate your wonderance.

I started my programming life with Delphi and C++ (pre-C++11), and when Delphi IDE became too bloated, I jumped to Python 3.x and didn't take it too seriously until Python 3.6 onwards.


Python?

But it's got all the same footguns that JS has, with fewer features.

If you're used to those footguns, why are you complaining about JS?


Python is even worse than than js. Worse package management, worst static typing feature. I also work in cpp space and I would rank large python code base one the worst to read with


It's not about crossing a line. For it to be poisoning the well it would need to have a characteristic that it simply doesn't have. At no point does the comment attempt to present its detractor's opinions as inherently invalid or worthy of less consideration.


It suggests they are reacting negatively because they are in a cult.


What it literally says is "it's going to feel like I've insulted a cult". It's not a very idiomatic sentence, which to me suggests the writer is not a native English speaker, so we need to interpret more liberally.

>my comment will trigger negatively a ton of developers, because talking about JS like this it's going to feel like I've insulted a cult. Let me be clear this is not my intention.

The salient points are:

* A lot of developer may take offense to these comments.

* "Because it's like I've insulted a cult" -> "Because it's like I'm killing the sacred cow." -> "Because it's like I'm trying to be intentionally offensive about something that's off-limits."

* This is not their intention.

If you take into account the entire paragraph I think the intent is quite clear. "If you take offense to my comments please keep in mind that I'm not trying to be intentionally offensive, I'm just expressing my personal opinion." I'll grant you that it's somewhat clumsily communicated, but that's not that surprising if ivanmontillam is not a native speaker. I think you latched on too strongly to specific words, instead of taking in the general message.


I’m surprised this rethorical trick is so hard to recognize. It is as old as the hills and you will hear it from people from conspiracy nuts to priests, salesmen to politicians. So it is a good thing to understand and be aware of.

The crux is the speaker preventatively discredit any objection. In this case by suggesting they are irrational and emotonal.

“People will complain/get angry/be triggered by my theory X because theory Y is a dogma/cult/holy cow/religion/what they have been told to believe by mainstream media” - the point is of course that an objections to theory X might be perfectly resonable and fact based. Objections will tend to be defensive (“its not a cult, it is mathematically proven that…”) making them seem weaker.


If you want continue discussing this then please address the points I made rather than insisting on the same point I already addressed. If you won't then I'll simply stop responding and assume you're just acting in bad faith.


Thank you for teaching me better english dear Sir.

(I speak natively Spanish)


No problem. By the way, Spanish is also my first language.


> What about 20 years? What about 1 year? Those are all irreversible.

You are using linguistic tricks to make a bad argument.

The fact that the past is immutable doesn’t mean that things can’t be reversed.

If you’re planning your day in the morning and you decide you’re going to have chicken tonight, you can never change the fact that you decided that you’re going to have chicken, but you can choose to not have chicken.

One way to stop yourself from making these sorts of bad linguistic arguments is to ask yourself, “does my argument mean that a word has essentially no use or meaning?”

That applies here, because your argument basically makes “irreversible” a nearly useless word. Any time your argument is effectively making an adjective tautological, there is a problem. Because otherwise, why does the word exist?

> but there's a continuum all the way to death sentence. Are you also against life in prison?

And now you have moved to making a like kind argument that the death penalty is essentially the same as a slap on the wrist, since the past is immutable.

Here is another opportunity for a sanity check on your argument.

When the state has executed someone, that person can never be apologized to. That person can never receive any sort of restitution. That person went to their death, very often in extreme physical agony. (Both electric chair and lethal injection have horrific failure rates on this. Firing squad, hanging, and guillotine are all much more humane). That person dies while a roomful of people who hate them watch through a pane of glass, sometimes cheering. They die, knowing that most people think of them as an awful person undeserving of pity, sympathy, or love.

“””It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.”””

To make an argument that this is essentially the same as any other punishment, even life in prison, is really kind of gross.

> and never thoughts about it for 2 seconds.

Sometimes more than 2 seconds is good, too.


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

Search: