>What an incredible, amazing experience.
You realize you can do everything you said, without living in someone's closet, in 99% of the world, right?
YC is making billions and their workers are living in closets. That's insane.
284 karma · joined February 9, 2017
You realize you can do everything you said, without living in someone's closet, in 99% of the world, right?
YC is making billions and their workers are living in closets. That's insane.
Costly, yes. But do those costs out-weigh the immediate benefits of slave ownership? Probably not.
I have a hard time thinking slave-owners were hurt by slavery; they made out like bandits, but their gains don't counter all the harm done to those enslaved.
That might be an exaggeration, but yeah. It's hard to fathom that someone could sock away enough wealth to last generations for accomplishing so little (from an investor's perspective).
What's insane is people comparing the government drugging us to equalize our IQ to the enforcement of a law that requires a publicly funded institution to put closed captions on their videos if they're to be publicly available.
I'll bet a reasonable solution comes from this, sets a precedent for the future, and the huffing and puffing will be for naught.
I agree.
>The law cannot eliminate that. All it can do is make reasonable compromises to mitigate it.
I also agree with this. And I believe that's what this law is doing: saying "you may be at a disadvantage in these ways, but you won't be in this way if we can help it."
Which is why we're not trying to cure their deafness. Instead, we're trying to ensure that the deaf have access to the same information those who aren't deaf have.
If I'm deaf, I know that you have no advantage over me merely because you can hear. I think that's "good". The laws are in place to protect minorities.
First of all, I agree with you. I think most others do as well.
The problem is, we can look at a case like this and say, "Obviously we shouldn't lose access to this." Then there's a next time, and a next time, and a next time. And eventually the deaf are at a measurable informational disadvantage to those who can hear. That's why these laws exist.
So, everyone should take a step back and figure out a reasonable solution. I hope that's the reason for the judgment.
They differ only if the metric you choose to measure against the debt is "money". But some of us do things for other than money; happiness comes to mind.
What is so significant about YTD?
You can arrange the data in any number of ways to tell a story: A Tesla investment since 2014 has lost money (and been diluted). Go back to 2013 and suddenly it's a goldmine.
Tesla having been a "good purchase" depends on what you paid. But I have a feeling that more people are sitting on a cost basis >$250 than <$100, in which case a TSLA investment has been mediocre.
A less charitable reading is that no single lender wanted to write the debt. A billion isn't substantial...
It's my whole point. Being a "content creator" is irrelevant, and not deserving of making money. Billions of people are creating content all day, every day. The vast majority of it is crap.
Good content creators will find a way to get paid. So, going back to the original comment:
"Do you expect content producers to get paid"
No. I don't "expect" it, and neither should they. If you can't get people to support the content generation, perhaps you overestimate its value?
>Or are you only consuming meme gifs or something?
Not sure what your point is, but it seems like you think meme creators deserve to get paid, not me. After all, they are "creating content", and I'm blocking their ads too.
It's a surprisingly small amount, which makes me think they couldn't get the terms they wanted/needed/
Sure, why not. I don't care. I have zero problem finding content I want via a variety of methods, free and paid. I have more content than I can consume.
But if you choose to go the ad supported route, know that I'm going to block your ads, so there's no point complaining about it.
Oh, right, the works that can't be replicated:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
Fortunately, we don't need those seeds. They can try to patent and sue all they want; the people will prevail.
The real story, to me, are the academics willing to sign their name to research they didn't write, for a pay cheque.
Or maybe it's neither. Maybe he didn't think twice about it, like most of us reading it, because it's beside the point.
>That double-standard is a flaw in his thinking and his character
Thankfully, HN has some glass-house residents eager to point out such character flaws, despite the content.
I'll reiterate: if you read something like the article, and your first thought is "this author might be sexist!" (emphasis on might), then you are not without your own debilitating flaws.
This is great, but it's also a single anecdote. Clearly there are people for whom it works out.
The real test is whether you, or someone using your identical methodology, can repeat it.
So you eliminate as sources any company that might have some staff "sympathetic" to the Muslim Brotherhood? That probably extends much further than you think.
>BOOOOM!
You didn't say anything revelatory or even exciting.
What reaction were you hoping for? That we'd refuse to read the thoughts of someone who lived 150 years ago because you deem one line sexist?
It's more shocking to me that someone could read a letter like this and get only "author is sexist" as the message.
By the way, "freshness, elegance, humanity, the capacity for motherhood" are traits I looked for (and found) in a mate. Guess he's not wrong.
How about some Model 3 details, as opposed to pipe dreams that may or may not appear on some random, future model?
The BLS indicator is what it is, not what others think it should be. The methodology is public. If you find other data more valuable, use it.
And, yes,they don't believe retired people or people not looking for work should be included. I tend to agree.
So you what do you propose as a solution for this (likely unrepresentative) anecdote? Lock her up?
Yes. $5-$10 isn't a lot to get time critical cargo (spoilable food) that last mile.
We have both in our workplace kitchen; they both produce mediocre coffee, in my opinion (and I'm no coffee snob). I wonder how the Nespresso got such a reputation? Is it widely considered good?
Or, maybe, it actually is good. Why do you assume some agenda on behalf of the 9, not the one?