CodeSgt

I disagree. I might enjoy 2 months of sitting on my couch, smoking weed, and playing video games stoned out my gourd.

That time would still be very much wasted.

> This is unfortunately very true.

But like, is it really? Still? Are you sure? It seems like we've reached a point now where women and PoC actually have an advantage over white (and often Asain) men in most areas of life now. Affirmative action programs at universities, private grants and funding specifically targeted at them, etc.

I don't have any hard data to back this up, it just seems from observation as if we've almost swung past "equality" and into "racism and sexism, but now just against white and Asain men."

Yeah sure, anyone who isn't an expert at the topic at hand should be barred from participating in any discussion about it.

Yes. Don't say things that the public disagrees with. Don't question what you're told. That's the lesson.

Of course I think the Sandy Hook shooting was real, but if someone said it wasn't I'd just think they're an idiot - not a criminal that should be tried in any court.

It amount to the same thing when those "damages" are largely unquantifiable, and the quantifiable financial costs that were incurred by the families as a consequence (security, moving, etc) certainly couldn't have topped $10m, and were likely much, much less than that.

I agree with you and upvoted you, but your choice of language was a bit strong and bordered on inflammatory. That could explain the downvotes I think.

That seems like the definition of a slippery slope, and not the fallacy. How do you ever quantify "intangible harm". If I make a YouTube video and call a bunch of people peepee poopoo heads and they actually experience genuine emotional trauma from such an abhorrent act, am I then liable for paying them hundreds of millions?

I'm not saying that emotional damage isn't very real and devastating, but it's certainly not something on which our courts should base their outcomes. It's too subjective, not provable, and very difficult to quantify.

Ah neat, I'd heard that term before but didn't know it's real meaning. Thanks! How are punitive damages determined though? Surely there's still some methodology to follow when calculating them, I don't see how any reasonable methology would have arrived at $1b.

I think you're right, had his conduct been better then his outcome would also likely have been much better. That said, I still think the amount is ludicrous and unjustifiable. Even if he had had actively encouraged his followers to burn down the homes and beat up the vehicles of every sandy hook parent the damages wouldn't have reached anywhere near a tenth of the amount he was fine. And as it happens, he didn't do that. He caused emotional damage, and had a tertiary effect of some of his followers acting on their own in a deranged way, but 1 billion just is insane.

Not a billion dollars, certainly. And did Alex Jones himself do any or even actively encourage any of the stalking, harrasment, or threatening? If he did, I'd say he's certainly much more liable (still not a billion dollars worth of liability) but I've yet to see where he's done either. He made videos, and some deranged lunatics decide to act on the information in those videos.

The lawsuit can claims whatever it likes. I didn't say that the lawsuit never claimed it. I said that I haven't actually seen evidence of Alex Jones actively encouraging the harrasment. If you have that, please share.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to make negative assumptions about what I will/won't do. Doesn't seen like a character judgement is relevant to the discussion. I even said "maybe I'm missing something".

For some reason, I had thought that there were certain lawsuits that wouldn't even be entertained by the court, regardless of whether the defendant chose to actually defend themselves. If that is the case, I think this should have been one of those. If that's not the case, I still don't see how a fine of $1b, or even $100k, could ever be considered reasonable in this situation.

On the defamation part, someone else responded similar so I'll copy and paste my response here:

> I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but aren't those cases only held up and prosecuted when the victim(s) suffered real financial damages? E.g. lost their job, company went under, etc. I have yet to see what tangible damages Alex Jones caused the parents of the Sandy Hook incident. Emotional damages to be sure, but I don't believe fining someone because they hurt another's feelings is a good precedent to set.

I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but aren't those cases only held up and prosecuted when the victim(s) suffered real financial damages? E.g. lost their job, company went under, etc.

I have yet to see what tangible damages Alex Jones caused the parents of the Sandy Hook incident. Emotional damages to be sure, but I don't believe fining someone because they hurt another's feelings is a good precedent to set.

That's quite literally all that it is. Maybe you dont like it, I dont like it either, but Alex Jones's part in this was just speaking. The individuals doing the harassment and making death threats should of course be punished. But holding someone accountable for the actions of hundreds of people they've never met is absurd. Did Alex Jones encourage the harassment? Did he tell his followers to go send death threats? If he did, I've certainly not seen it. And if he did, it would be a slightly different story. But speaking your incorrect opinion should not make you liable for the actions of a few deranged individuals who choose to act on that information in a negative way.

Do you truly think Alex Jones's speech inflicted a billion dollars worth of damage?

I'd love to see an itemized bill demonstrating that. If he actually did cause that much real damage, sure, it would be fair. But I can't possibly conceive how he would have caused even $100k in real damages, much less a billion. It's equally, if not more dangerous, to fine people ludicrously large, arbitrary amounts of money because they spoke something that went against public opinion.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure if I see how this changes the fundamental nature of the lawsuit. "Spreading disinformation", whether you profit from it or not, is really just "Speaking your incorrect opinion out loud" in a more negative light.

The basis of the lawsuit was "This man said things that made me upset". And yeah, they were rightfully upset, but it's something that I think any court in a country that values freedom would throw out in a heart beat.

Yeah, this is especially an issue as certain forms of medical care gets politicized. If a doctor is obviously telling people that cigarettes are healthy and alcohol abuse if the key to a long life then of course they probably should have their license revoked. If a doctor isn't certain of the literature or has moral objections to prescribing hormones to trans teenagers, well that one is up for debate.

Similarly see Alex Jones, I disagree entirely with his politics and virtually everything he's ever said, but ultimately he was just fined approximately $1 billion USD for no more than speaking. Honestly seeing that happen to a private entity is more concerning than it happening to a demographic that already requires government approval to legally operate (medical professional, in this case).

I missed you were an intern, that does change things a bit. I'd say embrace the challenge, get some experience working in a high-stress environment where you're complete out of your depth, and then sooner or later try to find a job at another company that won't do this to you.

Ah, I glossed over the "intern" word.

Alternatively this is one of those things that, maybe, if it all goes well, you could leverage for a promotion and pay raise.

Of course, there's a lot of context that we don't really have access to but that's another thing to consider.

Can't lose context if you never leave the file.

Bug free is a part of usability. Can't use an app if it's broken. I doubt the language used has any significant impact on the inherent usefulness of the application's created with it, but I don't think anyone is making that claim to begin with.

I think it might be one amongst many indirect signals for code quality.

It's a hard language, so the author of the program likely has at least some amount of prior experience to build off of, and to build anything truly substantial with it you have to have a deeper understanding of how the code actually works than you do with some other languages.

The language does do error handling, type validation, memory safety, and null checks really well. So, it's safe to assume that the app may have fewer bugs than it's counterpart written in, e.g., C or JS.

It could still be shit, of course, but I imagine the average quality of an app written in rust would be at least a little higher than thay of apps written in many other languages.

Trusting the outcomes produced by science is inherently faith for most people who aren't an expert in that particular field of research, and since no one is an expert in every field everyone has to take certain scientific outcomes on faith.

It makes me sad that so many people seem incapable of understanding that you can both enjoy your job and be emotionally invested in the outcomes you produce while still living a healthy lifestyle.

It makes me sad that so many people here and elsewhere are content to just spend a third of their day 5 times a week for something they don't care about and don't get excited over. Is that really "healthier"?

I have a job where the code I write has a direct positive impact on the people the use our software. I enjoy seeing those positive outcomes. I enjoy seeing what my team and I created at the end of a hard sprint. There are certainly things I don't enjoy, as is the case with any job, but for the most part I feel good about how I spent those 8-9 hours at the end of the day.

I hadn't seen it, thanks for the link!

It's a useful site but like I said, I was just interested in seeing the responses on HN.

Lol also this.

I'm probably an outlier, but I just... haven't? I grew up extraordinarily poor and spent the first few years of my adult life working low-paying jobs while teaching myself to code until I've gotten to where I am now. I feel incredibly and unbelievably blessed to have "made it" relative to where I, my family, and any of my peers would have ever previously thought possible. This, I think, has also changed how I view potential economic hardship.

If the recession does get bad, so what? I don't have a family to support. I don't have many financial obligations aside from rent and my car payment. I could survive on a retail or fast-food job if I had to.

I feel as if we've been warned of a looming recession for years now. It'll come in full force eventually, no doubt. But I don't plan on living my life in a perpetual state of fear because of it. I have enough anxiety as is. When it comes, it comes. I'll survive. I'll retain my current skill set. I'll make it out the other end. Not much else matters to me.

There's a lot of middle ground between blindly trusting all 'science' and blatantly disregarding everything that rubs you the wrong way.

It's possible to both have a generally high amount of faith in 'the science' while still remaining critical of its flaws, or rather, the flaws of the system in which its conducted.