The misrepresentation is a feature, not a bug. They need to create dragons in order to justify their dragon-slaying crusade. This has been going on for years, BTW.
Awesome game. My only request would be make the planes less maneuverable and move more like real planes. This would make it less chaotic and allow more dog-fight and strategic play.
The smart move would be to say she's switching parties because of Trump, run as a conservative Democrat left of Trump but right of the progressive wing.
This is cute, but I now see comments endorsing this brand of hate and hysteria (albeit with a less violent flair) on HN everyday. If you're going to suggest that you haven't noticed this trend over the past year or two then frankly your request for reporting is disingenuous.
In line with the original top comment, why don't you publicly declare that you you'll treat discrimination/slander of whites/men/conservatives/scientists/free-speech-advocates on this platform just as harshly as you would any other group instead of asking me to send you a dozen emails per day.
Any HN mods want to jump in here and suggest maybe HN is a tech forum and not the appropriate place to promote political violence? Or perhaps this brand of hate and hysteria has completely infected this community as well.
I've only seen a few pieces by Martin, but everyone was a gross distortion of the situation covered. She's a propagandist pushing anti-Western narratives, not a journalist summarizing the facts. I suspect her coverage here may be influenced by her anti-Western feelings.
You've put an interesting perspective on the safety/cost balance. I find it ironic that the replier is effectively demonstrating your point: people have an emotional attachment to safety, but not opportunity cost, regardless of the math. This is perhaps a form of "one death is a tragedy, ten thousand deaths are a statistic."
Agreed. This is "feelings over professionalism." If you're so uncontrollably emotional that you can't help but waste company time, take a sick day. But I think the problem is that they're not uncontrollable, rather they're very in control and are enacting a performance for their audience. Thus they need an audience.
Find one successful programmer at Google/Apple/Facebook/Cisco/etc. with an IQ of 90. Remembering basic equations, keeping long sequences of functions sorted in your head, even understanding FTP/Git/CL instructions require this level cognitive ability. When you deal with people who can't hang shirts you'll start to understand this. There are just under 200 million Americans with IQs between "can't hang shirts" and "productive programmer."
You've clearly never met a person who is unable to place a hanger inside of a shirt and hang it on a rack, or a person who can't sort 5 single-digit numbers mentally. What you are describing are 120+ IQ problems.
Another major glaring problem that no one wants to admit is that lots of tech work requires (at the very least) college-level-IQ, which excludes the majority of the population. And the lower-IQ jobs are quickly being automated away.
I meant we markup the computing power of the server (not exactly the purchase price). My host rents me a server that can perform X calculations for $Y/hour. I divide and resell that computation power, plus my software, to customers at Z markup.
Turns out writers weren't being paid for their songs, but were being paid for a portion of the massive markup on a plastic disk. Now that the disks are gone, the value of the song is laid bare. The same has largely become true for software. How many new Lotus's or Corels are being funded today?
But is it really fair that surgeons or NFL players don't match societal distributions for their respective traits? Think about how this makes all of the low-dexterity, low-coordination little boys and girls feel. For the sake of feelings, I demand mandatory mediocrity for every profession. Anyone trying to be exceptional should be hampered accordingly.
So obviously people like Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray, and George W. Bush don't qualify. So just reply with some links where you've been defending their right to speak as loudly as you've insisted Nazi censorship won't impair it. Because surely no decent person you would insist on clear lines of censorship and then quietly disappear as violent rioters use that reasoning to slander and silence people.
Edit: I'll take that downvote as a sign of "I casually claim censorship can be limited while doing nothing to stop its expansion."
Define it. Then define it in such a way that everyone advocating this censorship will agree too. Then pledge that when people start pushing for additional censorship you'll vehemently push back.
This was exactly my first thought too. "I'd better not make any videos that the CEO will dislike or he'll shutdown my site on a whim and then brag about it."