1812calif

iff it's a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3

i suspect the employer / (healthcareinsurer if in US) imbalance is really the core issue.

In medical research ethics, informed consent acknowledges the imbalance. I think e.g. CA unenforcement of non-compete does a similar job.

(I am also a worker bee and benefit from non-enforcement, so take my input for the electrons they're based on.)

old/new money suffices without an indicating your opinion whether people worked hard, or not.

To start, I agree with what you're saying.

What I struggle to reconcile in my own life is the difference between this logic, and the logic of a businessman who believes he cannot compete without polluting.

Do we accept "well, my business is unlikely to success, and so my family will starve" as a reason for shitting in the world the rest of us live in?

Or do we say, "there are alternatives, and yes, while your business may fail, we'll all be better off"?

heart disease vs. terrorism.

it seems to be an unfortunate emergent behavior of groups of humans.

We are in agreement. My comment was to the effect of "the author took literary license, most (native speakers) probably knew that, don't beat a dead horse."

In America, you are 100% allowed to do these things to your own house because you have to live with the consequences.

The trades are here to protect other people from me asserting my skill in electrician-ining, when I have no such skill but represent to others that I do.

Who is the ISIS of plumbing? I'm confused by that assertion.

Short pithy statements, are worth the electrons written on.

OK, I would encourage you to reread the conversation. The HN consensus is clearly different than how you perceive it.

You may be absolutely correct. The HN Hivemind is frequently wrong.

But please use this as an opportunity for introspection, wherein you centralize the idea that the community of peers with whom you choose to associate, think you are an ass.

It is acceptable and logical for someone to not be directly or indirectly affected by an incident, yet it still is not bullshit.

Suppose Mars gets destroyed by an unseen cosmic event. Are Earthlings inciting bullshit to go "oh shit, this could happen to us?"

You are speaking of basically an IP-based version of the spamhaus blacklist. For general http or TCP protocol.

I, for one, would be fine with a general internet citizen losing access if they have a compromised device. I suspect this is how we will go -- your home security cam was used in an attack, now every single website you visit for XXXXXXXX days gives you a CAPTCHA.

I maintain the crucial element is informing people why they have that hassle. Add extra friction, but not inhibit what they can do, because they are unable and unwilling to secure their devices.

Yes, this affects the internet-uneducated disproportionately. Yes, I think it is the responsibility of anyone with a broadband connection to understand the responsibilities that come with it.

No, I do not expect grandma to learn this. I expect her to deal with a crippled internet because they are not able to fix their pollution.

Do you perceive that your sarcasm was effective? Did it convey your point clearly and concisely, so that you can share your perspective and point of view?

Or did it do more harm to what is otherwise a legitimate viewpoint and possibly deserving of discussion?

This is a meaningless statement.

"Those who are not hopeful, who do not believe in a better future, are not paying attention." --me

Same amount of authority.

IMO, the most American of traits is a deep seated disbelief that their own government has private citizens' best interests at heart.

Many people do not agree, believing that their government (as defined by what they think it should do) is on their side.

It is a matter of trust or distrust by default. Personally, I believe the spirit of the US Constitution is to distrust those in charge.

In the US, many states require the consumer pay a deposit upon purchase of a Coke bottle. On return, this is refunded.

Because once your government is the arbiter of "journalism", anyone who disagrees will be marginalized?

Even the threat of it can affect what is / is not covered.

Once the government has significant power over journalism, you end up with Russian state sponsored journalism.

It's not perfect over here, and needs much improvement. Access is contingent on certain rules. It can get much worse.

I'd be fine paying for it to cover the cost of SMS. Like parent, I'm not willing to use facebook to get access, even for free.

One option would be to re-enable the SMS option for people who deposit money to cover the SMS fees. Mark them up 100% (so 2c per SMS or something) and you'll have a built-in profit margin.

It seems like attendant readers understands what the author was doing. They didn't say the definition explicitly, which would violate pep20 (explicit is better than implicit), but, considering this is an article in Outside Online magazine... I think we can accept this violation.

I can understand that you might think other people would be misled by the rhetorical structure... but I encourage you to not get upset at imagined misunderstandings on behalf of others. (Not that it's wrong, it's just makes your life a little less happy)

Not at all. A low probabilty does not make the prediction invalid because of the result.

I live in California. My neighbors are disabled and got blue curb for handicap in front of their place when they moved in.