1,146 karma · joined March 27, 2014
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12059810
The dynamics weren't changed, you were all just able to finally see the reality of your situation: you were being taken advantage of and no one told you.
Do you think they are sitting around looking for a 500m exit?
Maybe they compete with franchises that solely license a brand?
Funny; a literal opaque wall asking me to login or view offers came down over the content when I loaded it up (with no apparent way of dismissing it).
So, you had video, but no audio?
>a person tries to add happiness to their life by taking it away from other people around them
To me, thinking about others is not criticism. Criticism requires communication with the other party whom is the object of your thought.
Criticism was opposed to compliments in the lists, as if not agreeing (and actively making it known) with someone was a "negative" thing to be avoided (with the seeming implication that compliments should be given, regardless).
>In subtractive, a person tries to add happiness to their life by taking it away from other people around them - putting people down, criticizing, picking on people, name calling, etc.
I don't think I had seen any handshake failures in the final versions of the code in those projects.
Also, you need a TURN to work reliably over every possible NAT topology (though, a few years ago I think only about 5% of connections in the wild required TURN).
https://github.com/blakelapierre/instantchat
Can't say whether the HEADs work or not. They currently aren't hosted live at the moment, either.
>The danger here is that were the government to effectively coop wikileaks itself, which you think is anti-government, it would become a brutal and effective trojan horse.
The malignment is that "the government" would somehow use wikileaks to some negative ends [sneak into our minds?!].
>The entirety of his comment
You'll note that the original article doesn't even contain the word "trojan", and only mentions Wikileaks twice -- never in the context of it being co-opt'd by a government.
It did take more than a month to get to that point though.
The "blind faith" (I'm not suggesting it exists [nor that it doesn't], as the author does) is a result of previously publishing many things that appear to be true with no examples (at least that anyone here has revealed) of published falsehoods.
All that matters is whether the facts published are accurate. Maligning the source (particularly on speculation) is a pre-emptive ad hominem non-sequitor.