Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | kelseyfrog's commentslogin


My dumb butt thought it was gonna be a list of every tree in the world, all eight gazillion of them

I did a search, there are an estimated 3 trillion trees in the world; somehow that's much fewer than I expected.

It is actually three treellion.

Even nature likes a terrible pun.



I loathe these stupid widgets that show a blank map as soon as you zoom out a little (past the 1000m scale in this case). How can you fail so hard at your only job?

I'm surprised that the Katamari games include a longer list of physical objects than wikipedia.

The list of animals has dolphins and birds but not humans?

Consistent with this definition of ”animal” - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animal#English:_any_nonhuman_...

It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page.

"It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page."

If it allows you to edit it in the first place or isn't reverted within five minutes.


They have strict rules, but I’ve had no issues editing articles after my first error. It’s certainly not like posting an answer on Stack Overflow, where you will be downvoted and flamed for a correct-but-suboptimal answer.

With respect, that is naive. To demonstrate, create a new account and go ahead and make that change. It will be reverted. Wikipedia is not the democratic free-for-all it once was.

If you do perform that experiment and I am wrong, please come back and let us know.


Wikipedia is and has always been a wiki; reverting bad or controversial edits has always been expected from day one.

Also Wikipedia has developed an editorial line of its own, so it's normal that edits that go against the line will be put in question; if that happens to you, you're expected to collaborate in the talk pages to express your intent for the changes, and possibly get recommendations on how to tweak it so that it sticks.

It also happens that most of contributions by first timers are indistinguishable from vandalism or spam; those are so obvious that an automated bot is able to recognize them and revert them without human supervision, with a very high success rate.

However if those first contributions are genuinely useful to the encyclopedia, such as adding high quality references for an unverified claim, correcting typos, or removing obvious vandalism that slipped through the cracks, it's much more likely that the edits will stay; go ahead and try that experiment and tell us how it went.


There are plenty of "bad and controversial edits" on Wikipedia, just some are more acceptable than others. Wikipedia is an oligarchy.

I’m here to let you know you are wrong.

I made an anonymous edit to the Wikipedia page of one of Hemingways short stories three years ago, and my edit is still there.


You were lucky that you could edit in the first place. Most anonymous editors are blocked before they make an edit due to shared IPs.

I’ve made several edits to wiki-pages without even having an account. A few got reverted, most stayed.

Some pages/topics are more open to changes than others, that much is true.



The term "animal" refers to non-human creatures.

Not when I use the word. Animals are the big creatures that move around. Guess I'm just a preschooler.

> Stopped reading.

Their inability to define AGI and yet fund it is my opportunity. What an incredible gray area to operate in. You can receive funds until the piggy bank breaks and then pivot/exit to the next big thing.


Active management funds are more than welcome to beat or keep pace with the market consistently for 45 years. Until then, I'll choose the winning option.

No, there is currently no method to imprison Adobe nor any other company.

You can't, because everytime that happens, a group comes out of the woodworks that says X, Y, and Z need to be done before a general strike can even be considered.

X, Y, and Z usually involve community building, mutual aid, strike funds, housing security, and other precarity reducing actions.


The "pool of money" idea itself has got to go. Government spending and revenues operate much more like sources and sinks than a purse.

Spending injects money into the economy and revenues extract it. The two roughly balance each other but only because overspending/undertaxing increases the money supply in negative ways and under pending/overtaxing decreased the money supply in other negative ways. Besides these, interest rates are the third lever of the economic engine.

The constraint is inflation rather than solvency for states who have monetary sovereignty.

I get the appeal and the logical, rational appeal of the purse model, but it leads to a warped idea of how the government and economy interact.


That's exactly why the Millennium Prize Problem Bench[1] was created.

1. https://mppbench.com/


That's amazing :D

Billionaire wealth created by interstate commerce is taxable where it is economically generated, not where its owner sleeps.

The Commerce Clause covers exactly these scenarios.


This doesn't apply here, a wealth tax is levied against assets not income.

What are you taking about? Of course it does.

I wouldn't take legal advice from the executive branch.

I think you can only be sure the president will protect himself.

Some of his past allies have been put in some bad positions and it doesn’t seem Trump cares.


TV-free here for about 6 years. I'd recommend it. It takes some getting used to, but after acclimating, the presence of TVs has become annoying. I'm not sure why I'd want to lose myself for an hour or two to it when there's more fulfilling things in the world.

I can see where you're coming from with your "more fulfilling things" statement, but I disagree. After all, TV's don't spew noise they spew stories. I'm not gonna argue that all TV is fulfilling, but engaging with stories is one of the the things which separates us from animals and to me is one of the more fulfilling things in life.

> After all, TV's don't spew noise they spew stories.

Not really, TV in my experience it's all propaganda/stuff to keep you engaged and mad plus ads mixed in with some small content.

You're better off without broadcast TV... reading books, watching movies, socializing etc.


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

Search: