MrPatan

The Chesterton fence defense (yeah!) doesn't apply.

Did you care about Chesterton when the previous set of fence-smashers went around smashing (much older) fences?

You mean "hotel booking sites offer discounts to non-bay area customers", surely?

Intuition forms because it works. When it doesn't it's remarkable to the point of writing books and movies about it.

You're right, no badness there.

I couldn't make it to the end of the "Badness 0 Knuth's version" paper because of the keming. Is it on purpose? I can't tell, it was too distracting to keep reading. Ironic.

In UX, the right way to think about your users is not that they are dumb, but that they are very smart but very busy, and don't have time for your app's bullshit. It puts you in the right frame of mind when designing interfaces. It's not about dealing with dunces, but about being efficient with peoples time and attention.

Waves on what?

Can't spell "copilot" without "clip"

Is that 5% growth? Or is that a piece of paper with a number "5" in it? There is a difference.

> any foreigner who lent Evergrande money thinking this wasn't a huge risk is a moron.

Or they are very smart while investing your money. Check your country's pension fund, see who manages it and what they invest in. Or better yet, don't.

It's not taboo in the slightest, it's everywhere.

It's just that it wouldn't work because any group defecting and having more children would inherit the earth and you'd be back to square one, only now not even in control.

It's the same mistake as every other decel "solution".

It's so obvious, and so unbelievable that proponents don't think of it that one has to wonder, who pushes this? Qui bono?

The market, made up of a lot of people, seems to think the richest man in the world is pretty valuable.

A subset of people around here don't think that way. Why? I have my own opinion, not very flattering.

Not a lot of humans do

The world is easier to understand when you replace "fair" with "good for me and mine in the shortest of terms"

The non-austere "Free stuff for you! Vote for me!" political strategy has worked pretty well while technology improvements has made stuff faster than politicians can give it away. But it's a precondition. If technology ever stops improving at this rate, we're going to have a hard time, and no amount of words will change that fact.

To be for free stuff and at the same time be for degrowth, decel, limit resource use, etc.... seems naive to say the least.

Do you also worry that rogue employees or literally anybody with the keys to the office of a printer could have been changing the texts of laws as printed in official publications and books for the past few hundred years?

If not, why not?

Is the secret in the running of it? The policies?

Or is there a source of funds in the Isle of Man that is not applicable to the rest of the world? Like, if it was applied to the rest of the world the funds would stop going to the Isle of Man?

Is there also something not present in the Isle of Man that elsewhere is a sink for money? Something you would have to stop incentivising in other places if you want to have them "rolling in money", but that many people can't bring themselves to do?

I'd call it a puzzle more than a game. But yeah

Yeah, you never saw it

Preach. Angular 2+, btw, can (and should) be used the same way. V=f(S) is the only sane way to live.

Just don't change application state from a component lifecycle function and you're golden.

Does it contain a drill?

Just solved it, finally, it only took me ten years of seeing it on HN and attempting it.

I wonder if the "banned books" line is earnestly trying to fool anybody. Is it just for internal self-deception? Shibboleth? Mood affiliation?

Maybe it can be said it succeeded in changing the topic from "What's in those books, exactly, and who puts them within kids reach, exactly, and why, exactly?" to arguing about their being or not banned. Was that the play?

Sure. You'll find plenty of evidence for Navalny's lawyers as well, funny how that works. You still haven't told me how you're going to tell them apart. I mean, I know: You start with the conclusion and work back from there, so that's easy and clean.

Also, have you heard of selective enforcement? Does it not worry you at all to see the one side consistently getting prosecuted and persecuted and the other one not at all? Do you think you're always going to be on the right side?

I don't know man, you are watching the government of the USA going after its main political opponent, no holds barred, even after his lawyers (which of course is pour encourager les autres don't play coy), and you're taking it very well, like "Yes, this is what democracy feels like, love it". And the sight of literally Putin doing literally the same thing doesn't trigger the least amount of thought in your mind. It's all going great, yes. Beautiful.

There are no mistakes, just print it now if it aligns with the narrative you want to push, and you'll correct later when nobody cares if you got it wrong.

Yeah, I do wonder as well, how come Trump can't hire better lawyers? Wait, I'm getting a weird brain wave. Could it be because any lawyer representing Trump will get targetted, disbarred and destroyed? No, that can't be it, it must be something else.

Also, what Man? I have no idea who that guy is, it's enough that he's a Trump hater, you don't need any conspiracy, jsut the one guy who doesn't like Trump. You don't like Trump, so you went and google for whatever link you could paste here as "proof" and that was it, that was your process. Youtube-lawyer-guy's process doesn't necessarily need to be much better than that.

Plus I asked you how can you tell the difference between "actual crime" and a political witch hunt. You haven't answered. Do you think Navalny's lawyers won't be found guilty with all the trimmings in a court of law? Do tell me how would you explain the difference to the proverbial just-landed-alien.

How will you be able to tell which is which? Take it step by step

The scarcity of your skillset will protect you. Nothing else can.

The participants ignore the health of the participants quite a bit already in many a sport. Let them do what they want, I say.

This may be one of the only known instances where the plane-with-bullet-holes meme is applicable:

Some people see all those (planes) software projects (coming back from war) being live ridden with (bullet holes) technical debt, and the first thing that comes to their mind is ("better reinforce the places with most bullet holes!") "Better make sure to deal with that technical debt!"

Fascinating!