bradjohnson

Forcing brevity is the whole point of twitter. They've found that they are limiting the English twitter with 140 characters, but 140 characters seems to be working well for Japanese.

Just because an article title mentions the "super rich", don't feel the need to inject yourself into the discussion by waving your money around and saying that this doesn't apply to you. Nobody cares.

Do you understand it?

The drug was called Daraprim. I think the linked comment misspoke when calling it Retrophin, but I have heard many of the same things that they are saying. Namely that anyone that cannot get the drug through insurance can get it for free. I don't think that Martin Shkreli is a good guy by any means, but portraying him as "human garbage" is not entirely fair.

Please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14931661

I just want to take a second and complain about the twitchy monstrosity that is the floating nav bar. I scroll up to read text above and it covers up the text I'm currently reading so I have to scroll up twice and then down once to get rid of it. It's obnoxious and ugly and I wish it wasn't so popular. /rant

All of your options encourage a monopoly on the specific patent and ignore the possibility of licensing.

It's a UX failure. There's no point in recommending something that I've seen and there is almost no way I can know that I don't want to watch something without seeing at least a little bit of it. For all intents and purposes, the "Continue Watching" list is a recommendation of things to watch. If I thumbs down or ask Netflix to stop recommending it, I shouldn't see it prominently displayed anywhere when I open the app.

Or if I watch a couple episodes of a show and decide I don't like it and click the "Stop recommending this show" button, it'll still show up in the "Continue Watching" list. What's the point of the button?

Just be born rich or well connected and you will have no need for silly things like talent!

Why does it lead you to believe that? If they have talented parents, wouldn't the parents raise them in a way to encourage their talents to blossom?

Would be interesting to see if the children of talented parents that are put up for adoption and raised by average parents are as successful. Or vice versa, talented parents raising children of average parents.

Can I ask why you wish people would stay sober and stop hooking up?

One requires google to build a profile and have the knowledge in order to serve you their advertisements and the other can be done almost entirely client side. The spam filter doesn't need to phone home for anything other than updating the list.

a) Yes, I agree.

b) Not my area of expertise, but google doesn't fill half its website with a plea for donations once a year. As a layman it doesn't appear to be more sustainable than google. What is your argument for the sustainability of donations over ads, ignoring the obvious differences of these two companies?

And no longer... The market peaked and fell 10 years ago for both of those companies while google continues to grow. I'm not convinced that it would be a good strategy for google to follow their example.

To be clear, I agree that ads are not the ONLY way, just the most effective way for many companies. I think that there is no way that google could so easily steal market share from both Garmin and TomTom without ad revenue.

From the above poster:

>Even if you were willing to pay for it, many others might not be.

I'm not convinced that there is a way that google maps could be as big as it is without ad revenue. Most people just wouldn't pay and the only reason that you would consider paying now is because the infrastructure that ad money has paid for has made it worthwhile.

What's the point of funding something that won't help anyone because the author won't tell you how they did it? How is any conclusion that they've come to useful if nobody can verify if it's correct?

Long day. Suppose I could've been less snarky. Good on you for trying to help.

As a Vancouver-based software engineer that graduated about a year ago, I really wish I hadn't looked at this post...

It's not irrational. It might be unfair, but it sends the intended message.

If businesses associate pro-trump practices with a loss of revenue, this protest has been effective.

It's not only to influence the people directly affected, it's also to generate news coverage which will get the greater population talking about the cause of the protest. Which is what is currently happening obviously.

>it's harder than ever for the average person to figure out what's true.

It's so much easier to find truth backed arguments with the internet, the average person can easily check sources. People are just mostly lazy and willing to let their biases inform what they will accept as true.

I don't know about this feature, but why couldn't it be stored as a hash?

There's the recursive acronym for GNU: "GNU's Not Unix!" due to GNU/Linux's Unix-like qualities. I think you can be forgiven for comparing the two :)

I think my criticism is valid. Not only was this particular title not the original one, it still relies on the same false generalization that the article is using to bait people into clicking through.

From the guidelines:

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.

HN submission and article title omit the "Elderly" part of the study. Why?

They could transition to a combined cycle plant if they wanted to increase efficiency. I'm obviously not an expert, just like 99% of people here. If you look at the basic sentiment here it is that this seems like a fake solution to the problem of coal power plants and I somewhat agree. I think that it would help to know that they are at least attempting to move away from coal towards nuclear or renewable sources. It seems like there are a lot of solutions that could be pursued.

I was saying that if they were making any effort to clean up their energy source, there would be no backlash. You're trying to make this into a dichotomy where either you're for or against the deaths of people from smog. So, if I'm not participating in your flamewar, I'm not adding anything substantive?

It is reminiscent of the "clean-coal" marketing scheme that already exists in the United States and that's what most people in this thread are discussing.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I'm not suggesting anything like that. I'm suggesting that the government look into different solutions in addition to this. The CO2/kwh of coal is the highest of any modern energy source. If they're willing to spend money powering jet engines to shoot the smog higher into the atmosphere, why won't they transition to using a cleaner energy source that requires less money to maintain?

The way I see it is that you've got a garbage fire in your backyard and it smells bad and is making breathing difficult, so the government steps in with a giant fan to blow the bad smell away from you instead of working on finding a real solution.

Maybe this will work in the short term, but I'm a bit worried that it will cause complacency with the current situation. If they said that they were moving away from coal-fired plants to look for better energy solutions in addition to this, I doubt anyone would have any complaints. This feels like a band-aid fix when they should be amputating the arm.