Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pc86's comments login

Do people really reply to work emails with just "great, thank you" to the point where it would be distracting (e.g., many people on the email)?

Yes, sometimes I think it's probably accidental and they hit "reply all" instead of "reply". Some people though I don't think understand the difference between the two...

I'd imagine there was a way to do this without completely hijacking scrolling between cards, though. Perhaps it was just loading additional content slowly due to HN traffic, but with the majority being text it should probably all be loaded up front anyway.

I think it broke on my phone, perhaps as it lost interest, but that made the site a nice 1.0 experience.

Most people just look at the balance and forget (in the self-preservation, "I want to be right" kind of forgetting) that they contribution $20k+ that year so unless you've got a multi-million dollar 401(k) or the market was down 10%+ across the board you're very likely to see more on December 31st than was there January 1st regardless.

I'm not sure that's quite fair. Unless it were 2001 or 2008 people look at their balances and see they're generally up unless they made some big gamble and at least unconsciously conclude they probably did as well as they reasonably could. But that may be what you're saying. Worrying about a percent here or there probably isn't worth it for most people.

We're saying the same things, I just meant you could actually lose a lot of money but see your balance go up, especially with smaller portfolios. As your portfolio gets bigger it's less likely to happen because eventually a single-digit loss over the course of a year might be enough to wipe out more than the max contribution.

Yes. Even if your overall balance is going up, it makes sense to keep your eye on doggy investments. I really cleaned shop a couple years ago and I'm glad I did.

If you have two security models that provide identical actual security, and one of them is invisible to the user and the other one is outright user-hostile like the TSA, yes of course the invisible one is better.

HS friend of mine was SF so this info is OEF/OIF-era information and could very likely be different today. You are not going to be able to just pick whatever weapon you want, but you are going to have a wide array of training and be able to pick something more specialized to the mission, whereas for the most part if you're some random infantry grunt you just use your rifle for everything. But if you're a random infantry grunt your M4 is going to be a good rifle for all your missions - you're not going to need a silenced SMG/PCC or something that can reach out 800 yards. Sidearms are similar, it's not carte blanche but among what is available you can carry whatever you are comfortable with within the scope of the mission.

You're much more likely to see SF guys with short-barreled rifles, pistol-caliber carbines, suppressors on everything, etc. For all the (justified) complaints about military overspending, there just aren't the resources or training available to give every rifleman a suppressor.

I believe you but I wonder how that works

The explosive power is divided between forwards and backwards, there are no other holes in the tube and the weapon is basically recoilless.


As far as rifles go 5.56 is about as anemic of a round as you can get and have it still be fit for purpose in a military or defense context. You can't even hunt most things with it because it's not powerful enough. They only way these rifles are causing brain damage is if you're on the wrong end of one.

They are however incredibly loud. Being close to someone shooting 556 with a brake is a really annoying experience and I would not be shocked if there were follow on effects.

I mean you'll get hearing damage for sure but I'm just saying that's a far cry from cavitating your brain tissue.

Yep. Clarified my original comment a bit.

Torres del Paine in the south is pretty brutal to get to if you're not used to long flight but it is breathtaking. Definitely a bucket list trip if you enjoy nature and wildlife, hiking, etc.

It's nice, but unfortunately listed on nearly every tour guide of Chile, so these days it's flooded with tourists most of the time. You'll have a much better time seeing other places slightly off the beaten track.

During the summer months yeah, but I've been there last year during the end season and, although there are still lots of tourists, it's not overwhelming and some of the hikes were pretty chill.

Going straight to the Torres themselves will usually be crowded (depending on the time of the day). But some of the other hikes less so. I've done the W Circuit (a multi-day trek) and during some days I barely saw another hiker.

I hate visiting touristy cities but I mind don't mind it as much in nature areas. Mainly because the nature isn't changing itself for the tourists.

I visited Torres de Paine and it was refreshingly different from national parks in the US. On the upside, you can get water and basic snacks at the refugios which reduce the load you have to carry, and makes for an overall safer experience than unsupported wilderness backpacking but still with minimal impact on nature. On the other hand I did not like that they close a lot of viewpoints long before sunset.

"Mainly because the nature isn't changing itself for the tourists."

Yes, but some tourists change the nature by leaving their garbage etc.

That sounds bad, but in the end:

"Nevertheless, recent paleoenvironmental studies performed within the Park indicate that fires have been frequent phenomena at least during the last 12,800 years."

So fires are a normal thing there, or they have tourists since 12,800 years ..

Or blasting their music from a phone or Bluetooth speaker.

Yeah I hate that, but at first glance it didn't seem to be a huge problem in TdP compared to most other national parks around the world I have been to. Most people I encountered seemed quite responsible. Chile is overall a very well-educated country though, and TdP takes significant effort to get to compared to so it is perhaps a natural filter.

Really enjoyed that. The views are surreal. Got lucky with the weather too.

Nobody is talking about prosecuting the office whatever the hell that would mean.

I know this is what you're saying but just to head any other knee-jerk responses, US citizens do not lose their rights to a trial in the US, for breaking a US law, because they happen to be outside of the US.

Relatedly, when the question is "is this person protected by the Constitution," imagine a Venn diagram where one circle is "US citizens" and the other circle is "human being physically present within the United States." Debate over the 100-mile "border zone" notwithstanding, the entire thing is filled in. If you are a US citizen anywhere, or a person inside the US, you have all the Constitutional rights.

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