diminoten

HN is a commons, and follows few/none of these principles. This comment, for example, could ungenerously be considered "low effort", but that's because it's easy to dismiss a comment with few characters, so making sure the number of characters written in a comment is long enough to match the magical "not low effort" value that's applied (unevenly, to be clear).

Even trying to talk about this problem leads to censorship on this site.

None of these 3rd party VPNs are really meant to be hardened against state sponsored attacks, at least I wouldn't think myself secure from that level of sophistication. They're basically most valuable to mess around against adversaries that have little to no access to security resources, like your average ISP or forum moderator.

I'm not you; I don't need the kind of help navigating the Internet that you do, and it's condescending as hell, writing what you're writing. You have zero clue what my mental state is, please don't presume to know how I'm feeling.

And no, I didn't misdirect my comment; you said my comment came across one way, and I replied to that. You are, again, not an objective arbiter of intent, and again, please stop trying to be.

I did write what I meant; there's simply no way, on average, fasting has zero negative side effects. That's what I wrote. The fact that you or others couldn't navigate your way to that conclusion is on you, not me.

And I did want to come across as sarcastic and condescending because it's frankly insulting to others when you claim such outrageous and wrong nonsense on the internet. You deserve sarcasm and negativity if you bring idiocy to a reasonable conversation.

My emphasis is on the word "risk" (captured in the literal words "most likely"). It's risky to go without a guide, though it's not "needed" in the sense of a 100% failure rate.

Honestly, the fact that you assumed others were talking about "have a guide or 100% failure" is disingenuous on your part.

What you've written here sounds a lot like the utter pablum that comes from the marketing literature of every fad diet on this planet. Besides, how CEOs behave and what is sane are not overlapping circles if you're trying to draw a Venn diagram relating the two...

Sorry, but what people expect doesn't matter. What is true is that digital identities are intrinsically linked between sites where the same username is used.

You can't hide behind, "but no one expected that" and expect to live a happy, unsurprising life. There is no law you can pass that will fix this, no matter how much you complain.

In no way is fasting healthy for you if you rely on having energy, focus, or any ability to function as an independent adult while fasting for more than a day or so at most.

It's easy to pretend that "badly written" code is intentional or desirable, because then when we write it, we can excuse ourselves by saying, "BUT IT WORKS!"

That's why this idea is popular, and your comment is controversial. You're taking away a crutch that many of our peers cling desperately to as a way to justify their shortcuts and poor decision making.

So if I found any evidence at all, you'd agree you were wrong? Seems pretty strong if a stance to take...

Enthusiast communities are probably not the most objective group of folks, so I'd take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

I'd bet literally tens of dollars it has no material impact on his fund.

The point is they do something, but for that something to be most likely good/positive, you also need therapy, which if you want, you can interpret as a "trip sitter" or whatever the phrase is.

Y'all aren't disagreeing.

Can one submit a FOIA request, load that data into a database, and sell that data to others?

Why do companies pay the DMV for this information if they can just FOIA it from them for free?

I hope soon, that's so cool!

You can choose to load the SDK or not, e.g. only when the "Log In With Facebook" button is pushed.

"They are not the same company" is, while true, not a guess. Come on, take a real guess! When was the last time Zuck spoke at YC? When was the last time YC worked with Facebook? How many of the folks at YC either come directly from Facebook or have invested in Facebook at one time?

Your hands aren't clean here, if you actually cared about avoiding Facebook at all costs, you wouldn't be here. The fact is, you don't (nor should you).

"Don't use" and "only use for people who actively opt-in" are two separate things, so no it doesn't come down to what you care about.

I'm saying give people choice, let them figure out what they care about. Making the choice for them is bad business and bad ethics. You don't know better than your users.

Given a person who doesn't like their nose, should it be okay to provide cosmetic surgery to that person, despite the risks any surgery comes with? If the patient doesn't care, is it ok then?

Given a person who wants to jump out of a plane, should it be okay to let them, even though it's a relatively high-risk activity? If the jumper doesn't care, is it ok then?

Given a person who wants to run for national public office, should it be okay for them to release their prior year tax returns, even though it's an exposure of their privacy? If the candidate doesn't care, is it ok then?

Turns out, this isn't an easy game to play, so stop trying to decide for others what they want for themselves. You don't know their situation.

The same way a trainer or doctor frames the health risks involved; you explain it and hope people are listening.

Signing in via Facebook is also a deliberate choice.

There's no ethical argument for depriving someone of food but people fast all the time. Further, the war crimes my gym trainer is guilty of know no bounds!

You can give up your "human rights" for convenience/pleasure as long as you can reassert them down the line.

Ethics?

The problem is practical; do your users want the features or do they care about privacy? Let them make the choice, and don't hide it from them. That's the ethical behavior.

It's unethical to assume everyone values everything the same, including privacy. Some people don't care about it as much as you do, nor should they.

Features, userbase, talent; the same reasons a developer or engineer would work with any company.

Let's play a game; how many degrees separated from Facebook is HN and YC? You go first, take a guess!

You're acting like we can't use multiple systems, or that people care if they can interact with us...

Who cares what I care about, the real question is what do my users care about.

It all depends on what users will tolerate in the name of convenience.

Oh man, the world needs Moderation as a Service so damn badly. Bookmarked for if I ever get off my ass and build something; I would rub this all over a Reddit clone in a heartbeat if I could.

The current model on certain platforms of user-based moderation is so obviously a series of badly-constructed band-aids on top of other, even worse band-aids. I got to /r/soccer first so I must know how to keep it clean from rage porn?! Insane. Pushing that cost (mental and time) onto users is reckless and dangerous to your company.

It's about time someone stepped into this. I'm rooting for y'all.

Don't we need a bunch of "bad" investments to get the space tech to move forward faster?

Like, maybe this guy will convince a bunch of "fools" to invest, and in his path to failure, he'll find some more efficient way to... something.

Or are you saying, even if everything was efficient, there are things you can't fix, like how far away valuable stuff is, that makes it all pretty pointless?

Laundered and counterfeit money are completely different things.

Complete drivel, written by someone who should know better.

It doesn't matter where an idea like "slut shaming" comes from, what matters is the negative feeling associated with being "slut shamed" resonates with a lot of people.

To take the analogy seriously (not advisable), it's like saying, "money isn't valuable if it's laundered". Absurd and wrong; sure, laundered money is bad, but it's the laundering, not the money, that's the problem. If we stopped the laundering, the "money" is still worth what it's worth, but does the author suggest the people who put names to the feelings many people are experiencing should stop? No. The author suggests the ideas are "nonsensical" and doesn't elaborate.

It's just strange to me that the left has come to own the defense of minorities, but it's a narrative that both sides have totally bought into, and zealously attack/defend.

Why is it "liberal" to care about someone's feelings?!

I can't remember what the rules are on paywall circumvention these days: https://pastebin.com/vgEvZeph