419 karma · joined August 2, 2019
Absolutely. It is trivial! And the company making the submission is expected to do that. Which I think is very reasonable, considering that they know the requirements and make the actual submission in the first place.
It’s silly to want the reviewers to take on an additional burden in the process just because this one company made a dumb mistake which as you say would have been trivial for them to review and catch.
They didn’t submit the required information in the required form. SF wants startups to behave, that doesn’t mean that behaving startups get to ignore the standard procedures or get exceptions from requirements.
No doubt tons of fans of hers will fill their houses with her crap-ware and the irony will be lost on them. But what does it matter? They’ll buy it because they want to express their alignment with her image through their spending. Just like they bought an exercise bike because they wanted to seem fit. And then they threw it out because she told them it was what they should do and they listened and now she’s saying buy tuning forks and they’ll listen.
AFAIK, the sexual interactions where consensual as they occurred. But the two woman withdrew consent after the fact as they learned he hadn’t been wearing a condom (and they discovered he’d been with both of them).
These days I feel like python/flask does it simpler. True you need to define a function and use a decorator, but saves you having to set up the server before getting started on site itself.
I get the strange feeling that the answer is a hard no. And that this price was ordered which is why it goes on like one long excuse for why different people might have different opinions of it.
This really depends on the data. In pharma the right 50 bytes of data can be worth billions. Not all data is personal product preferences for add targeting.
Seems the problem is that the product got classified essentially as “just a new baker baking bread”. And in that case you wouldn’t do clinical trials to see how people react to eating your exact loves of bread.
Then people realized that his exact brand of bread could be given to infants, and still you wouldn’t do a clinical trial because it’s just bread.
Then it seems that the production process might have been flawed in a way that doesn’t quite harm adults, but is dangerous to infants and here we are.
So what really was the major flaw? Should we start doing clinical trials on all foodstuff given to infants? It likely wouldn’t have shown anything if the root cause is manufacturing process problems, because those problems would not have been present in the batches used for the clinical trial anyway. But we would end up having to test every single brand and procedure of mashed carrots to see if it caused problems in infants.
That seems to be the pitch because it fits the trope of “big bad company never thought of the potential consequences of their money making scheme!”
But really this might just be a straight forward case of manufacturing practices not being held to the needed standards, because a plant got thrown around between a couple of companies and the people on the ground didn’t know any better.
Also, you have to now wonder if Heinz ketchup produced with the same process given to infants might cause NEC. I’m sure that even if there where such cases no-one would have been able to connect the dots.
Have we really reached the point where people think it’s normal to run every proceeding live on Twitter? Imagine if this was at an event, and a person was wearing a “I love HN” hat”, if another attendant stood up on a chair and started screaming from the top of their lungs “This makes me feel uncomfortable!!! It’s a violation of the CoC!!”.
Would your first thought be “this is a great process” or “perhaps we should tell the screamer to stop yelling and talk to the officials”.
It constitutes harassment because the aim here was not a proper review of a potential Violation, but an attempt at instilling mob mentality against an individual and forefinger due process in evaluating the case.
As for the complaint about exact motives being hidden. The argument is only that since the rest was conducted in public, the public should have transparency into the motives and review. Which seems reasonable as a response to this case, not as a general rule.
You could argue that by not having high quality independent third party review on a controlled market place (like the Apple App Store) has security implications. Because that would have checked for and vetted against abuse. But again this has nothing to do with curl.
This seems to be a scientifically proven and effective treatment which has proved benefits. But the name makes people have incorrect assumptions (and apparently also at least one practitioner). So it’s getting a lot of bad press.
All because of a bad name.
It’s not like the politicians have been completely blindsided by the fact that companies hire people and that people want to live near where they work.
The same kind of person who thinks it’s impressive that you swiped you credit card a few more times than they did for the same society? Rolexes, branded suits, designer dresses, branded smells, it’s all the same. Products that are effectively the same as cheaper alternatives except the are more expensive and carry along with them the awe of someone taking on that higher expense. That is to say, everyone, including you. You just aren’t conscious about it in the contexts where it happens.
Also, “Timmy can’t join our clan, he’s a cheap-ass who can’t even afford the flaming bucket helmet we all wear.” Is a powerful sales pitch.