commentzorro

This is not even closed to comparable. So far off that I begin to suspect everything else you said.

The Tuskegee experiments were a limited horrible experiment undertaken by the US government fully aware of the fact that they were performing horrific experiments on the people in the study specifically to see how bad things would get.

The vaccines being rushed through trial are sourced from multiple labs in multiple countries with the hope they will help the entire population. The primarily role the US government plays is to ease the rules and to provide some funding. They are not pushing a particular vaccine, type of vaccine, the trial groups, or any of the other details.

I never understood this. Why have one or the other instead of both. All questions funnel in on a "everyone" area for a particular type of question. (Junior people can moderate those to gain experience if the senior mods don't want to. This will give them experience, insight, etc.) Even the most repetitive and/or superficial homework question can be answered and not closed as duplicate. (Or at least pointed to the duplicates but not closed until the questioner has accepted a duplicate as an acceptable answer.)

When "good quality" appear or new/unique questions and answers appear they can be refined and moved over into a curated persistent section for future reference. The senior mods can take over at this point to make sure the reference Q&A are as they like.

I always hated that "closed as duplicate" reply especially if I'd already seen the supposed duplicates and didn't think they applied. This approach would allow those to be answered by new people or ignored if nobody wanted to answer.

I hate calling only to find out you're selling for triple the price of comparables because of "magic beans" reasons.

Would there be a mechanism in place to remove your fines and points? Would that system be automated? Would it be susceptible to lying? How long would it take to get the record corrected? Would the effort cost more than the fine?

Just from a technical/automated point of view, removing the moral and societal aspects, the real world is currently just way to complex and ambiguous to automate things like this.

That's the phrase that caused people to read negativity into your post. You didn't mean it when you were typing but to those reading the phrase has come to mean, "there's something wrong with the {thing}" or even "that {thing} shouldn't be." Could your paragraph have omitted that sentence and conveyed your meaning or is people knowing you don't understand integral to what you were trying to say?

I also appreciate the humor of @jppope using that same sentence as the lead for his/her comment.

No, No, Absolutely not!

Don't you understand?! Anything specific would legitimizing the comment and subtext of the posters comment. This feeds into a false narrative that's been going on for years.

Anything without snark would have made the commentator's message seem legitimate! Only the snark shuts down false "scientific sounding" narrative and the fat shaming subtext.

KirinDave's reply, while well intentioned, still feeds into this narrative and allows the commenter to continue arguing that fat people just need to buckle down and stop shoveling food in order to balance calories.

We'll disagree on this. I think a lack of civility and the addition of snark is indeed called for in these types of comments. However, I understand your comments and realize that the mods make the community. Time for me to step away I guess.

-- The literal part of the comment was misinformation.

-- The subtext of the message was flamebait, implying that people are fat simply because they cram too much food down their throats.

-- No response would have just left the false information hanging thus validating the idea. Therefore no response was not a useful option. (Think anti-vaxers. Don't want to leave misinformation alone because it propagates.)

-- A response that talked to the points made in the comment would have validated both the text and subtext even further.

My response pointing out I was aware of the misinformation and the subtext to let the poster know I wasn't going to validate it nor accept it seemed to be the appropriate solution.

What would have been the proper response that would nullify both the misinformation presented in the comment AS WELL AS the subtext?

A server gets their tips probably about once an hour or so and the amount from one customer may differ with essentially the same service for another customer. Esentially random and arbitrary.

The ACA is going away. Please don't use it as a crutch.

Lower premiums mean higher deductables. We see that now and we saw it before the ACA. Healthcare costs $18,000 per person this year regardless of how you divide the premium and deductable. Take away the young and the price goes up for everyone else. And this is with a cap in place by the ACA. Only going to get worse with the regulations removed.

Without the young paying in during the early years they're going to have annual premiums of $40-50,000 as they approach their 60s.

Please don't be stuck in your desires just to avoid having to shift mental models. I'm not saying it won't be hard. But I am saying it will be worth it.

And please please don't condemn generations to poverty and early death just because you want to believe that which reinforces your fantasy world view.

Please don't ignore the facts in order to bolster your opinion. Do some research before commenting. The truth doesn't hurt as much as you believe, but it does take some time to understand.

Here's your fallacy. This is simply and factually not true.

(I'll leave it to you to not put in the effort to research this as I couldn't even put in the effort to watch the video.)

I believe it was abandoned because solid state ICs grew way too quickly and outpaced the ability of the liquid ICs to keep up.

Maybe, but why not try Go on a small piece and see how it works.

> I can't believe the CTO of digg bought this...

You make it seem like the CTO was somehow being conned. Like Go was a bad choice. Maybe it was as simple as wanting to see what another language offered and this was a good time to try it out.

> Why can't developers just admit that they don't know how to scale a service?! It's not the language that's the problem, it's you; it's always you!

Oddly enough, this is a language feature built into Go from the get-Go. The language is designed such that a mid level programmer can ramp up and write performant Go code in a short amount of time without needing years (or even months) of experience, theory, classes, third party libraries, tooling, etc. It's a bold experiment and it may not succeed. Has it for Digg?

Here's a good list of the major frameworks for Go. https://github.com/avelino/awesome-go#web-frameworks

Also, the complete Awesome Go list is a wonderful resource for browsing some of the best Go libraries out there.

This will be nice. I was playing with some of the examples on the site and noticed a number of them tended to "jump" a bit when the response was returned.