hbags

Your post is bullshit, and you are attempting to manipulate us.

Your argument comes down to this: people should not be reminded that war is hell. That's it. That's the entire crux if your poorly considered post.

If you're a pro-war sociopath, then you have a point. If you prefer a well-informed populace, then you have no point at all.

Worse than that, you're attacking people who can add additional perspective solely because they're not providing every perspective simultaneously. It is morally disgusting that you claim The Guardian damaged the search for truth by adding counterpoint to existing propaganda efforts.

It is truly sad that you felt the need to attack The Guardian for writing this. You are eloquent, but deeply misguided.

It saddens me that your thoughtless and damaging response is pinned to the top.

Right now we have one major source of news about drone programs: government PR. It is biased and one-sided.

The Guardian has found a legitimate source of an additional perspective and they are adding it to the public's understanding. And you are somehow claiming that this makes things worse. That is bullshit.

The only people hurt by this are pro-war assholes who view reminders that war sucks as being problematic to your twisted causes.

> Americans feel this way, sure.

I'm American. I don't feel that way at all.

They're moderating the negative responses.

"How much water us used during the production of an egg? 120 gallons"

This is the only one I feel comfortable commenting on specifically, but this is insanely wrong. A laying hen drinks about 16 ounces of water per day, eats a few ounces of food per day, and lays an egg every 1-2 days depending on the breed and the conditions.

Your quoted figure appears to be, quite literally, off by a factor of 1,000.

Perhaps you didn't intend to imply it, but unfortunately that message was communicated to several of us. Thank you for clarifying that you don't hold that view. This apparent miscommunication emphasizes the importance of not deleting (and not substantially editing) posts once they've garnered attention.

I, for one, hope the author feels no remorse for their article. It was a fun and interesting article, and they reported the story well.

I continue to hold the belief that if this incident creates a material problem for RG, then RG was already a ticking time bomb. That said, I have plenty of faith that RG will weather the storm, and that perhaps this will be a wake-up call that inspires them to do something more creative and valuable than a spammy link-swap.

mlyang: It is absolutely a bizarre first reaction to imply that the reporter should feel culpable for the harm that RapGenius caused themselves.

If RapGenius is ruined that easily, RG didn't have a real business to begin with. Their scheme was something that would've certainly triggered Google's ban-hammer sooner or later; the only question was timing. My bet is that RG will reexamine and improve their distribution playbook. I say this because I don't think a16z would invest in a company whose distribution plans consisted solely of SEO.

But you could be correct. Maybe RG is such a fragile company that this nearly inevitable setback is enough to kill them.

p.s. just an FYI: it's generally considered bad form to delete a post that has already garnered responses, especially if those responses are critical.

Many readers on this site love to attack research by reading an article about the research or reading just the abstract, and then assuming that the researcher was slightly dumber than algae. This is just another example of that particular blend of arrogance and ignorance.

It's because Silk Road sold a lot of hacking tools (password sniffers, key loggers, and remote access tools) alongside the drugs.

Wow. I encourage you to study written English communication.

Your writing clearly implied that regulation is useless because sometimes criminals evade regulation. If you were capable of understanding how communication works, you'd admit this.

Further, I encourage you to learn how not to be a jerk. because you are one, and it undermines any value that you might have, by ensuring that no sane person (who disagrees with you on you on any point) will ever want to have a discussion with you. That said, I can see where an ignorant jerk like yourself might consider it a feature that only people who agree with you completely are capable of having a conversation with you.

"seek out other people who are passionate about it"

ding ding ding ding ding. This is what networking is. Purposefully interacting with people whose passions, and goals overlap your own.

It saddens me that so many tech folks do exactly what you did: writing a screed about how networking is useless, in which you explicitly note that you networked, and that your network is responsible for all of your big career successes.

Giving $600MM away with no hope of earning a return is not an industry. Full stop.

And laws against theft don't prevent all theft so theft should be legal.

I will never, in my life, understand why so many Libertarians take the argument that if some criminal might engage in a crime, then everyone should be allowed to do that same thing. It's the stupidest argument possible, yet you all parrot it unquestioningly. It blows my mind.

It's hard to take you seriously when you refer to a single individual giving away a huge chunk of wealth with no hope of earning a return as being an "industry".

The cars wouldn't block the lane of a major artery for long periods of time, as per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6876464

My antipathy towards AirBNB comes because my experiments using AirBNB exposed me to:

- hosts using fake names - hosts using fake addresses - hosts giving deeply inaccurate descriptions - hosts telling me that the super might swing by, and I should introduce myself as (some other name) friend of (another name I'd never heard) if I ran into him. - neighbors of the unit giving me the stink eye, presumably because of what other guests had done.

My personal experience leads me to believe that AirBNB is, at it's heart, a platform that is built to create negative externalities. The processes in place to correct these issues are non-existent, which indicates to me that AirBNB knows this, and does not care.

Your réponse (and dnautic's much longer response) are both based on an unsupported assumption: that employers in a zero inflation environment wouldn't trim wages.

The change in inflation would impart no change to the balance of power, so there's zero reason to believe that employers would become more generous in the alternate condition.

We already see employers trimming employee wages even today. It would simply be more common in a zero-interest environment.

Inflation is most damaging to those who save but do not invest. The poor are near 100% consumption, so it has essentially no effect on them.

A person whose average cash balance is $100 is not vulnerable to inflation.

No. You failed to recognize two key points:

1) Savings erodes investment. Savings is the non-productive hoarding of cash. Investment is when one takes cash and deploys it in a way that creates value. In a slightly inflationary economy, a wealthy person can only remain wealthy if they deploy their capital in a way that creates more value for the entire economy. In a deflationary economy, they can get wealthier by doing literally nothing.

The net effect of this is a reduced pace of innovation for the whole economy.

2) My consumption is your income. Thus, if I spend less money, you make less money.

The net effect of this is a huge pile of pernicious effects (reduced economic mobility, reduced productivity gains, reduced innovation, reduced opportunity, reduced incomes for all, etc...).

In most countries, giving your bank details gives them deposit-only access.

The US is behind the rest of the world on this one.

Deflation doesn't eliminate the demand curve, it just shifts it a bit to the left. It reduces consumption. It reduces investment. It increases savings. It does not cause a 100% reallocation from consumption and investment to savings.

Commodity prices are always unstable. There's a very good reason that only people with specialized needs write contracts in pork bellies, bbls of oil, or other highly volatile commodities.

BTC is a virtual commodity, and as such it's exceptionally unlikely that it will ever be more stable than other highly volatile commodities.

Speaking of cocks, the technical leadership at two well-funded startups systematically harassed Zed by adding him to github repos that contained nothing but ASCII cocks. I know this because they bragged about it openly, thinking it hilarious.

Zed takes a lot of abuse for little reason.

I debated naming the companies here, but they appear to be failing anyway. Probably because they hired the sort of people who find harassment hilarious.

edit: removed oblique reference to one of the companies. I don't feel like giving those firms any publicity, even if it's bad publicity.

Are you criticizing the study? It appears that you have conflated the study proper with a journalist's lay interpretation of the study.

if you were criticizing the study proper, could you provide a link to it?

Put your money where your mouth is. Openly run a mixer. Openly advertise that you are the person who operates it.

If you're right and I'm wrong, it'll be a lucrative business and you'll probably quickly dominate the mixer industry, as it'd be very easy for you to get press and build name recognition. You could do it as a very part-time job.

If I'm right and you're wrong, you'll be in prison.

A mixer's sole purpose in life is collect a fee for concealing sources of money. It's textbook money laundering.

Ah, and here's the post where the poor, afflicted fellow disavows his stated opinions, because he now believes that the rest of us are government agents, and the conspiracy is even larger than he first imagined.

Ephemeral messages is not the same as privacy. A service based on privacy wouldn't publicly show who you communicate with most often.