Hacker News comments from the source story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24548876
26,686 karma · joined December 28, 2010
@joeyespo
joeyespo.com
Now there's not much to fall back on if videos become too difficult to distinguish what's real or not. Is there anything beyond video that we can trust when looking for information?
One idea for the "enter a URL" path. If you save the image URL for a longer time period, you could give the viewer the option to re-run that URL and perhaps save it to that location for another hour.
Or show a message like what Flask's logo does when you right-click it the first time [0]. e.g. "Note: Direct linking will not work. This image will disappear from our servers in an hour." (Possibly with "Click here to post to Twitter instead," which can help "persist" an image while spreading the site a bit further in the process.)
TV, movies, and games are forms of entertainment. Advertising is a form of manipulation.
Sure, the lines can be blurred, so we do our best to filter out the bad intentions.
Modern advertising seems to become more effective as well. I never anticipated a defense of ads, but I've actually been criticized by visiting relatives for keeping commercials out of reach of our family. We're "out of the loop" now, unable to relate to a joke or situation delivered by commercial. And around holidays and birthdays, we get asked "How do your kids even know what they want without commercials?"
Here's another from them that answers "what exactly _is_ the Bible?" for anyone curious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_CGP-12AE0
I've found this to be a wonderful way to get into the heads of dev users before you approach them directly.
Go ahead and read and decide for yourself though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13582757
Been using My Style [1] for readability on his site. Even this small tweak helped:
body {
max-width: 768px;
margin: 32px auto;
font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 20px;
}
I personally enjoy being on both the sending and receiving end of message of thanks.
Projects like this recognize this and can perhaps help break that silence of the majority https://github.com/kennethreitz/saythanks.io
It doesn't have to be 100% for it to affect people depending on this industry.
> doesn't mean replacing every single job that went overseas
Sure. But again, assuming there will be enough manufacturing jobs that do return, this is still a _short-term_ solution. You're fooling yourself, and a lot of hard-working people, if you believe these jobs will stick around another 10 years.
Let me take a step back for a moment. If doing this eases the daily struggle for real people nation-wide, that's convincing. But let's not then sweep the real discussions around automation under the rug. Let's address this now before the jobs inevitably dissolve again.
Because it won't work. Tell a company to pay higher wages for the same positions by bringing them home, and that'll push them toward automation even faster.
These jobs may return for a short while. But that only brings false hope. And then we're right back to where we are today, hurting even more people in the process. It's extremely short-sighted.
Here's just one article on the matter https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602869/manufacturing-jobs...
Also note that Foxconn has already begun automating their plants. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966 So it's already a demonstratably viable option for these companies.
What we really need is to bring _automation_ home and have some serious discussions around solutions for these real struggling people instead of spouting the hand-wavy "bringing jobs back to the US" rhetoric.
Most Americans don't really have a choice. There's just not enough time and energy for self-direction after a 40+ hour work week.
The evidence is in age (and those who do have the extra time). Children are incredibly curious and self-motivated. Teenagers are too, if you give them the opportunity and guidance. If you're lucky enough to go to college, you have a pocket of time to try things and tinker (in addition to the easier-to-find socializing aspect) before the realization of how much debt hits you. People in their 20s-60s aren't self-motivated because work occupies most of their time. Not the other way around.
Also, for being in a field that relies on creativity and changing people's perspective and habits, saying that it's a non-starter because people are cynical and won't change is not being very creative.
This seems to be the overlooked point here. In business, it can be profitable to disrupt and go after sweeping changes. In government, you can hurt real people in large numbers by doing so.
Also, the article isn't implying that companies can't or won't do good. Companies can certainly work well across income ranges. The point is, that's still a different goal than working well across all income ranges.
body { max-width: 768px; margin: 32px auto; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 20px; }
[1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/my-style/ljdhjpmbn...
In this case, the right thing really is contextual, so a configuration or extant setting / default is worth the cost in complexity.
The quote "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" comes to mind here.
> One of the problems with basic income is that decouples work from income entirely
It does, but not entirely. You can still work for extra income. It only breaks the dependency in the other direction. And that's its strength.
The gig economy, while incredible and empowering, is also unstable and largely out of your control. You can have an influx of work at one moment, and near zero another. BI smooths this over by allowing you to survive during the dips. It also reduces the toxic stress contractors can experience even during a wave of work. When the gigs run out (and therefore, the income is less under BI--but not zero!), it gives you time to seek out new work without panicking.
The point of that article is that it isn't. It only adds integrity if you trust the signer. From the article:
> When attempting to verify a signed file you check the signature against a public key. If the signature matches that public key then everything is kosher. The question then becomes which public key, and therein lies the rub. If you do not have a well defined model of trust then all you’ve done is thrown cryptography at a problem in order to give the people involved the ability to say that their system has signature verification.
> It's not NPMs job/obligation to provide the javascript world with never ending storage, hosting, and bandwidth.
That's true, and a good point that we shouldn't expect it to be this way in all circumstances. On the other hand, allowing people to rip out packages without warning makes for a much worse npm experience. Expecting that all JS developers set up a local proxy for all projects, particularly in a non-professional setting, is also unrealistic. npm is indeed improving the situation here (even if they're not solving all possible situations).
Do you think if would help if npm automatically banked packages locally? It's not quite a company-wide proxy, but it could prevent this from failing on your local machine without too much setup.
Proxying via a local dependency is a good practice, but that can be set up independently of npm.
(IANAL. Just doing my best to interpret their policy.)
That's because people don't tend to write "-1", but rather disagree with a comment explaining why. GitHub is full of disagreement. We'd be in a much worse place if that was all expressed through downvotes instead of comments (unless of course, an issue is explicitly opting in to a vote).
> people will +1 something that they 90% disagree with because of who's saying it, don't kid yourself otherwise.
Ok yeah, you're right about the politics. Bad example. But in open source, I've seen much more comment-based pushback regardless of author.
As for "I don’t think it’s 100% clear-cut that you should never ever implement downvotes," perhaps. There's still probably better ways to flag inappropriate comments though. Like a flag button. Downvotes are far too general and ambiguous in comparison.
Negation is different because it's entirely ambiguous. You can dish them out freely and retroactively rationalize your intention. -1's are way more susceptible to knee-jerk emotional reactions than +1's.
A relevant example. Think of the political candidate you like the most. If someone you really like asks you to +1 a persuasive argument about their competitor, would you? On the other hand, if they asked you to -1 someone, you probably would. Even if you knew very little about them.
What about a comment? Once someone elaborates why they disagree, others can trivially +1 it to show support of a specific disagreement.
On the other hand, you can disagree with both the original comment and someone's disagreement, prompting an additional "disagreement" reply.
Note that -1's don't carry as much information as you'd think. It could mean any one of these:
- Someone disagrees with you
- Someone doesn't like you
- Someone is angry or having a bad day
- Someone is retaliating or holding a grudge
Without any rationale, there's absolutely no way to tell the difference between a useful disagreement and juvenile aggression.