Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | mayanksinghal's comments login

> Long-term couples tend to take care of each other's health and wellbeing ... because it makes citizens happier, more productive, less likely to need public handouts ...

Citation needed. Plus, the benefits have to outweigh the costs: tax breaks, unhappy folks (would that cause health issues?) stuck in the bad marriages etc.

I am guessing availability for comparatively stable social unit for raising kids might be a large enough positive, but the benefits should then be for families who raise kids, potentially scaled with the number of kids (don't know if that's already the case). Even the other benefits you mentioned, have nothing to do with marriage - civil unions (or even group of not-romantically-involved-with-each-other friends) can make citizens happier, productive, less likely to need handouts, raise children well (if single parents can, why not multiple parents?) and produce taxable wealth.

As much as you might loathe it, learnings is now a word (and has been used intermittently for a new centuries [1]) so deal with it.

Additionally, Indian students do the best they can given the limited resources (we have). And even when they do have broad education it's not going to be about Mozart and effect of WWII on the western nations - they will always be out of context when it comes to western culture. It's the same kind of lack of ability to think (or express without getting eyebrows raised) about everything else that you might be showing here.

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learnings


> voting members

Except 5, other countries don't have a permanent say in the system. The 5 can veto any resolution. The sad reality is that UN has been successful on various issues (while still failing on very many) despite being an utterly undemocratic establishment and that is constantly being used as an excuse to continue with the current system.


Five is the number of permanent members of the UN Security Concil which has nothing to do with things like managing internet.


> flat-rate fee per-person for transport

That was not the case. I remember paying a different amount than the person I was sitting next to, because we were travelling different distances.


True. It's a flat rate for a given town or neighborhood. You won't be charged for traffic delays as you would in a cab however nor can the driver charge you more if he needs to detour around road construction or some other issue.

The rate is the same for everyone in a given "zone" regardless of the specific route the driver must take.


> Is Uber trying to shut down Lyft, through a variety of tactics?

But not through cancelled rides, right? I don't understand how Uber trying to recruit drivers is any different from any tech company trying to recruit me.


Straight up, this is a key point. Lyft is in 64 cities. 5500 canceled rides over a year is peanuts. That's 1 cancel per city per 3 or 4 days. I can't believe this is even a story.


It's a story because it's an abusive tactic. It harms individual drivers to try to benefit a very wealthy company.

It's a story because Uber thinks they need to do it. Does that then mean that Uber thinks they can't compete on quality of product and price of product?


>Japanese Hackers simply ignoring English speaking part of the internet.

Internationalization seems to be something that hackers rarely invest time on. It is not like hackers in Silicon Valley build their products while worrying about supporting users who speak Mandarin/Cantonese/Japanese/Hindi etc. I really don't think it is close-mindedness at play here.


Just because he argues that privacy is unsustainable/sub-optimal doesn't mean that he has to facilitate its erosion. It is similar to how someone who demands privacy doesn't need to be prove his anonymity.


He is actively saying that privacy is a bad habit, but yet he won't demonstrate that he believes what he says by posting his history. Heck, all he has to do is screenshot (or copy/paste) everything from https://history.google.com/history to prove he's not "dishonest". And if "knowledge is inherently good" then it would be inherently good to know that he is not actively trying to subvert the government by browsing certain sites or reading certain books. It reads like someone drunk on idealism that believes information will never be distorted, used against them, misapplied, interjected with false data, and so on.

"doesn't mean that he has to facilitate its erosion"

It's not facilitating the erosion, it's adding evidence that what he says is backed up by fact, starting with himself. If he does not believe he should follow his own ideals, does he really believe them?


I cannot be sure, but I think he as arguing about it at societal level. This is my interpretation:

Given the technological improvements, privacy is unsustainable. If everyone realizes this and accepts it, we can reap the benefits of transparency. In a society that does not hold bad actions against those who already paid their due fine (or served the due time). Neither does that future society discriminate against people who are different. In that society, privacy will probably be beneficial only to the dishonest.

Now, I personally don't think if we can reach that stage of maturity, not anytime soon at least. But I think we are moving towards it faster than before and we are doing that because of the easy access to information especially the kind of information that we would otherwise keep private.


Right, I think that too and for the most part I agree. I have issue with the lack of those advocating for social-transparency to describe where the line is. Without having the serious conversation of where privacy and transparency are reasonably balanced, we're rushing into irrational decisions that have a long and lasting impact on society.

I have yet to see a single person who advocates for full transparency post their entire browser and search history, which to me feels odd. If they're advocating for full transparency and yet won't demonstrate that they themselves believe in the ideal enough to offer their own evidence and admission, I don't think they actually believe in those ideals fully, or more likely, have not articulated/discussed/discovered an appropriate middle-ground between these 2 concepts.


As much as I'd like not to have to hide anythings, society currently gives me no choice.

With the way society is currently designed, full personal transparency is pretty much social suicide.

Society was designed with some basic expectations of privacy. For example, we rely a lot on passwords and secrets to "prove" ownership and identity. Full transparencies implies that all my private keys, all my passwords, my credit card number, everything that is meant to be private is available to anyone. In a society that relies on no such concept of private knowledge, we wouldn't have this problem. But that's not the case right now.

The example above is just one reason why people shouldn't surrender their privacy just yet, and wait until the environment and context make it convenient. That said, we won't reach that state if we don't realize and accept that privacy is not we should rely on in the future. There are steps to take to make transparency practical and fair, and solutions like the ones mentioned in the above article are not any of them.


+1. I can't take it anymore! (http://imgur.com/FQEHB7b)


> how society maintains is social structure

I grew up in India. My schools had no bullying at all. And we still had a (much weaker) social structure, the popular ones, the slightly-dangerous ones (those I would avoid hanging out with) and the not-so-popular ones (like those who would spend time on a computer instead of meeting up for sports). Bullying is not universal. Neither is it necessary.


According to a Microsoft survey, India is the third worst country in the world for online bullying[1]. The same survey showed that 54% of Indian students report being bullied offline, and 50% report having bullied someone offline. I think you are quite mistaken in your assessment of your schools.

Studies have shown bullying to be universal among not only humans, but all primates and many social mammals[2] (such as rats and dolphins). Among human societies, bullying is present across the board, from hunter gatherer groups through post industrial societies.

That isn't to say that it can't or shouldn't be dealt with, but you are dead wrong when you say it isn't universal.

[1] http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...

[2] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/12/15/th...


It may be universal, but as you yourself suggest, it is highly dependent on cultural constraints. To talk of bullying in India without understanding communal tensions is ignorant and takes away from the rest of your valid points.


> And that is the definition of an insult.

No it's not. The person who leaked the info should feel some responsibility for his actions. I don't think HTC exec's actions were not to scale in opinion. But this is no way an insult.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact