Fargren

> It isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Gosh, that sounds awful (both the actions of the police, and the decision of the judge). This failure to hold the police to a high standard is what brings about these situations.

The number of deaths of police officers on duty has not exceeded 141 for over ten years [1]. Considering every city has cops, I can hardly consider it to be a dangerous jobs. There's almost a million cops on duty[2]. With a yearly chance of death of roughly 1 in 10000, being a cop is probably safer than not being a cop! [3]

Cops in the US receive training to protect their own safety at all costs, even if that may endanger the lives of innocent people around them. If their duty is to protect and serve, they should not be trained and equipped like this. We don't need to fix crime, we need to fix police training, and yes, we have to be willing to increase the risk policeman are exposed to as part of their work.

On a different point, you mention "bad apples will happen". The expression is "a bad apple ruins the bunch". That is to say, if you don't eliminate all the bad apples quickly, the bunch is ruined.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/05/08/the-nu...

[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[3] http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html sorry this data is from 2005, hopefully it's not too different from current

A goal of the GDPR was to make these business models illegal, because they are considered bad. It has not been successfull at this, mostly due to lack of enforcement.

That's actually not allowed under GDPR. You can't deny access to a website based on whether a user accepted non-essential tracking.

The law does not forbid you from storing any cookie, even if the user declined. The user can decline cookies that are not needed to provide what the user asked for. Even after the user declines, you are allowed to use cookies to keep track of what's in the user cart, whether the user has logged in or whether the user rejected cookies.

What do you mean by encouraging? I was out of the country at the time so maybe I missed something.

To be clear, I think the 8th was a mistake. But at the same time, the opposition was organizing rallies and those were not stopped either. There were also massive football matches. At the time, I think the government simply underestimated what was going on, in a large part because the OMS guidance wasn't prudent enough. The fact the 8M aligns with the government may have entered into it, but it's not clear given other events that happened around those dates.

Spain was following the indications of the OMS at that point. The pandemic was not declared until March 11th, three days after Woman's Day.

By default, anyone can rally in Spain at any point. They don't seek authorization for the government, they have it by default. It can only be revoked and not granted. While there probably was some thought given to preventing the rallies, given what the OMS was saying at the time it looked like an over reaction. It was, of course, an error in hindsight, but I don't think it's indicative of a big failure of leadership.

No, but they are reducing the useful life of their cars by using it more than "normal", which will lead to them buying another car normal than if they were not doing Uber.

> When all are privileged, are any, really?

That's like saying "when everybody has money, does anyone have money?". People have varying amounts (and kinds) of privilege, but some have more than others.

"JUST QUIT" makes it sound like quitting is an easy thing to do. "like they have a gun to their head" makes it sound like direct physical threat is the only mechanism of coercion that exists. These things are just not true.

For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the moment they quit, but by quitting they are endangering themselves and those that depend on them. Their relationship with employment is inherently coercive.

This is especially true during a pandemic that's causing more people to be unemployed.

I appreciate this. I have not had an easy time finding any data that goes deeper than the 0.2% data point, which clearly doesn't give a full picture because it doesn't dive into the effect of comorbidity. Your sibling post links to data that puts the risk for people under 40 without comorbidity at roughly 1/6 of the 0.2, which is a big difference. Do you have any data, or any sources for your comment about the situation in Australia.

> Most people on HN are under 65 and thus will only get mild symptoms and likely just be out for a few days.

This is the most likely case for people how are not vulnerable, but by no means a sure thing. Plenty of people without preexisting conditions have died or had to be hospitalized for days or weeks.

Data is a bit difficult to filter, but as an example 4.5% of deaths in NY are from the 18-44 age group[1]. Presumably a large fraction of those were not vulnerable, or not aware that they were. The fatality rate in that group is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.4%. You are not likely to die, but those are not chances to take without a second thought.

[1]https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...

Most mortality estimates and forecasts include only deaths directly attributable to the virus. There are many indirect deaths that will be caused by it. Long term lung damage is one of the ways this will happen, probably among the most delayed. Many more deaths will happen because hospitals that are operating at capacity won't have the resources to prevent other deaths that they normally stop, or will have to stop non-critical treatments in ways that will reduce patients' life expectancies. I live in Madrid and know a neurologist that has stopped any intervention that can't be delayed.

I'm in a similar situation as the OP, and have heard that argument used for me. I don't like it. In order to live frugally and responsibly, I was lucky to have the upbringing that taught me to do it, and to not have anyone depend on me so that I could focus on getting to this point. I was lucky to live in a relatively wealthy country during a relatively stable time.

I made a couple of good decisions, and put in some effort, sure. But a lot of people work harder than me and make harder decisions every day, and they are doing a lot worse than me. What separates me from those people? Luck, mostly.

Those tests can be written, but if you do it naively coverage is measurable and very small. And the physics engine is not necessarily deterministic (or if it is, you can't always control all it's parameters)

I find this argument very weak. Should communists not buy anything? Should anarchists not use roads?

When your political beliefs are at odds with the current legal framework, you have no choice but to compromise to some degree. That doesn't mean you don't actually believe what you claim.

Won't this increase the price of goods imported into the US?

Just one note about 10x, because I often see people ho don't believe it have the definition wrong. 10x programmers are not ten times better than the average programmer, they are ten times better than the worse programmers. This is based on an actual study and, by the metrics the study chose, this disparity does exist. Of course, measuring programming performance is notoriously intractable.

There is not one solution for Global Warming and CO2 emissions. No silver bullet, just as in software. This is one more tool, which needs to be used when appropriate. But we also need better legislation, technological improvements, and changes in consumption behavior, locally and worldwide. If we look at each of those things and do the math, the answer will be "it's not enough" or "it's too expensive". We mustn't let that be a showstopper. Of course some solutions are really not viable at all and should be ignored in favor of others, but every solution that helps enough (for some definition of enough) needs to be pursued.

I recommend that you read the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Specifically "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." and "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it."

In general, if a story is in the front page it means that hackers found it interesting, so it can hardly be off-topic. But if you still think it's inappropriate for this forum, flag it rather than commenting.

I can speculate that this story is found interesting because many people in tech live in areas like San Francisco where rent prices are a hot topic. Therefore stories about how these kinds of places deal with the problem are relevant.

I find this view very unsettling. Everything I have and love, and everything almost everyone has, is thanks to society. I suppose that includes the bad as well as the good, but really society has brought so much joy that the only way I can imagine someone saying it can only bring hurt is if they don't see how society has helped them. I guess if you are a hermit society doesn't do much for you, and in that case good for you.

I have to assume that what you mean by society is no the same I mean by society. Society gives such basic things as language (not any particular language, but the existence of any language).

Most of us are in perpetual debt to society, deriving from it much more value than we can ever hope to give back.

Plant is a vague polysemic word. In this context I would take ti to mean as not animal or mineral, as it's not uncommon to divide things into those three categories.

No, EU says "let's put signs that point to where there are (previously invisible) freeways".* GDPR does not ban any practices, it just says that certain practices need to be communicated to and approved by the people affected by them.

*metaphors can get quite silly

I'm not a native speaker, but the first entry in the dictionary for worry is "to torment oneself with or suffer from disturbing thoughts; fret", while "care" when used as a verb is defined as "to be concerned or solicitous; have thought or regard"

I have thoughts and regards about my financial situation, and will for the rest of my life. I think everyone has such concerns, so saying that someone cares about their financial situation is kind of meaningless. If that's your definition of worrying, even the richest person in the planet worries about their finances.

I certainly don't torment myself thinking about my financial situation, nor do I think I will ever need to again.

EDIT: Actually, there are people who don't care. I've seen them. But these people generally have never learnt to care: they are either children, who havne't had to handle money yet, or people spoiled people who essentially behave as children. In my experience, not caring about money is not related to how much money you have.

>if you weren't worrying about finances at some level why are you going to work today instead of going on holidays in a nice spot ?

I care about my finances. But I don't worry about them. I have a high degree of certainty that, barring getting a disease that prevents me from working for multiple years, I won't have major financial problems for the rest of my life. The fact that I live in a country with good public healthcare (Spain) is a factor here.

>? could you handle, say, your house burning overnight with all your belongings ?

100% yes. My belongings are worth less than $10k. It would be annoying, but completely manageable.

I think most of the people replying to you are equating "not worrying about finances" with "not working another day in my life". Which is probably which strikes you as disconnected.

I see where you are coming from, and agree with you. I am happy to say I'm at a point in my life where I feel I will never have to worry about finances, and I'm nowhere near $10MM. I'm 30 years old, live alone in an apartment that could be big enough for my wife and a kid if I decided to marry and have a kid. I save/invests around 60% of my income. I'm not at $100k on savings/investments yet, but can easily calculate when that will be and it's not too far in the future. I work full time, and I'm looking to reduce hours/days worked before I turn 40, but maybe I won't. If I will, financial implications will not be the major factor of that decision.

So yeah, considering I'm comfortable with two or three less orders of magnitude less than 10 million... I'm as amazed as you are.

So what? I have a Huawei Mate S, from 2016. Quite good at the time, it's still totally serviceable. The lack of a replaceable battery is the only reason I'm starting to consider a replacement. I know, I'm not getting security updates anymore, but the average consumer doesn't care about that. I don't feel I'm losing much in terms of functionality from having an older version of Android.

I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent. There's one skill not mentioned here, but I think is the most valuable skill a programmer can learn, and many people take for granted. Know English. "Communication" here is related to that, but it's not the same. A lot programming resources are not accessible at all without passable English, and without very good English, there's a lot of them that will go over your head and you won't even know why. That's without even getting into the advantages that come from talking the Lingua Franca of programmers, and the collaboration opportunities that brings.

I rent my apartment, and it comes with a fridge, so I guess I'm renting the fridge too. IS this not common? Do people usually bring their own fridge in when they rent?

The number one thing I like about it is that the UX when playing the game is very good. This is exactly why I didn't play MTGO. Other than the autotap sometimes making dumb decisions, it fells very good.

Other than that, my favorite game mode in MTG has always been drafting, and while drafting free to play is probably not possible right now unless you are amazing, you can draft a lot for little money. I have a win rate under 50% and I can play all the drafts I want to for about 20 dollars per month. If I was a better player, it would be even cheaper.