porphyrogene

It is never too late for education. It is always too early for crippling debt that exceeds your proven earning potential. None of this advice touches on the lost principle of not putting one's future on layaway. Student load debt forgiveness is a death sentence for American politicians yet there are millions of us waiting for a miracle.

I think you are confusing a conceivable narrative for a well-reasoned explanation.

That is some impressive technology. I can see this going over very well with my family in Japan because they make such industrious use of their space. I, however, live in an NYC apartment (not Manhattan, granted) and still have plenty of room to spare. I've even been hanging onto my holiday recycling so that the super doesn't have to deal with a huge load all at once.

I would be willing to save money by buying a less compact screen.

> almost certainly

What are you criteria for near certainty and what evidence-supported claims are there that satisfy those criteria?

Facebook is a private entity and they can do with their software what they want. If that drives away users then that’s their problem. You can set up a server or a static page and disseminate your opinions more easily now than ever. No one ever promised the ability to say whatever you want without response or repurcusion from individuals, corporations, charities, political parties or interest groups.

Facebook executives are disrespectful and duplicitous but this is hardly an existential contradiction of the concept of the free and open web. If people choose a corporate platform with corporate censorship then the real problem is that no one is offering a better alternative.

No problem. A good exercise I used to do was writing inheritence patterns first with pre-ES6 syntax, then constructors, then classes. They are, of course, interchangeable but it’s not wise to rehearse an anti-pattern.

EDIT: I said assign method earlier, I meant create. The assign method is the pre-ES6 way of creating object instances. Object.create() is used to inherit prototypes. That’s such a common mix-up that I’m embarrassed I didn’t catch it.

He did not say that he was wrong, he said that he cannot know for certain that he is correct.

You struck your child because he was licking his hands.

Sometimes things are so hard and so overwhelming that you become a slave to your overwhelming misery and do things that you would never do with a sound mind. That does not mean that those actions are exempt from criticism. Most of the people on death row were likely of unsound mind when they did whatever landed them in that pointless punitive boondoggle.

If you can stomach abusing a child physically with intent then you and your spouse will likely continue to abuse him in one way or another when things get a little too stressful. As a former abused child I can assure you that he will forget. Then, when he is able to see children from an adult’s perspective, he will remember. He may bury his contempt and convince himself that you were right and that he should hit his own kids. Or he may lose respect for you. The latter would be the healthier response.

That video at the top of the page is absolutely god awful. I acknowledge that this is a low-quality comment but that cannot go unmentioned. I would believe that the first ten seconds are satirical.

That would ruin the timing and deprive the viewer of the subtlety in the animation. The single-frame transformations into animals and the connecting frames while the camera's perspective pans would be almost impossible to distinguish. This is art, not a lecture. Digesting the series of events in the most efficient way possible is not the point. No one cares how the story ends, it's nice but trivial compared to the animation itself.

The Ark is a socially acceptable way of animating the fact that they are sexual partners and gives a clever explanation to the fact that the clothing throughout the animation suggests that it is raining. The story starts by making it look like a parlor trick for free drinks then develops into what looks like a sadistic prank but it ends up finding an endearing resolution that puts everything right. Let the animation speak for itself, pigeon-holing is a fool's errand.

You misunderstood my comment.

That's a great piece of animation. I don't know if the content-less opening and ending are there to be true to an original film reel or something along those lines, but for those who haven't visited the link it's about seven minutes of animation.

She compromised the social security numbers and other personal information of people who pay her company under the assumption that they will protect that information and you're telling me that SHE is the victim?

It would be like a chef who doesn't wash his hands firing a line cook for not washing his hands. A company giving their executive who stores social security numbers on the same system on which she opens emails (and trusts them implicitly without a second thought) a free pass is a way for them to give themselves a free pass. If she were to be held responsible for not understanding basic security protocols then the company could be held accountable for failing to train her properly. Until we raise our standards the companies who compromise our privacy and security will have no incentive to raise theirs.

Do you have a right to behave as if every link and file is safe and secure or should the people who are tasked with protecting personal information be expected to behave with reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of perfect strangers? HN wants to have it both ways, apparently.

Mavis should have been fired. That was a careless mistake against which someone in her position should be constantly vigilant. If we punished people for hacks that are the direct result of their incompetence then we wouldn’t have these “Gee we’re sorry about that” corporate responses. She opened an email attachment because the stranger who sent it said that she should. If you fall for that you should not be using the internet at all.

The design looks to be half flat and half dimensional. I would pick one or the other. Flat UI forgoes box shadows which has the benefit of avoiding the uncanny valley effect. These shadows are so big that the light source would have to be very close to the page yet they are uniform and uni-directional so they stand out as unnatural. I would also move the click handlers from the text to its containing element. There are what look like buttons but they are just meaningless wrappers for the text which actually has the click handler. If it looks like a button it should behave like a button.

The global Object’s assign method is the “old” way to inherit prototypes. ES6 syntax did not add new language features; they were there all along.

I value entertainment immensely but saying that it solves unhappiness is like saying that prostitution solves loneliness. Unhappiness is a core element of the human experience. It is not solvable because it is not a problem.

You don’t need to use the constructor syntax to have an object inherit prototypes from another.

This a good article but I would add that quoting a YouTube comment in a serious context also shows a critical lack of understanding of what the internet is and how its content should be regarded. The comment in question could be posted by the author or the subject of discussion without the reader having any way of determining or suspecting that fraud. The same cannot be said of a direct quote. It seems like the author was parsing YouTube comments to get an idea of what the young people who “get it” had to say and that absurd notion stayed with me throughout the article. Unlike the author scrolling through YouTube comments, I was questioning the quality and genuineness of what I was reading.

Doing so later led me to ask: are Senators who know how to text each other the most technologically knowledgeable people in Congress? Is that really good enough to inspire hope in the author?

There are a lot of "configuration-free" Webpack solutions popping up. The one thing that they all have in common is optional configuration.

The US, UK and other countries are using facial recognition to round up and re-educate ethnic groups? You have invented a lie of convenience and sold it to yourself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-m...

My attack was neither personal nor "nationalistic". It is against the HN guidelines to respond to comments that you find inappropriate:

> Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

I tried to make a purchase from Ambrosia last night and it appears that their payment and fulfillment systems are inoperative. I had heard that was the case but I was being optimistic. They may have gone defunct without warning at some point in 2018.

> what happened with Torvalds' position this year

Read: He went on vacation for five weeks.

Your ability to be blind to a challenge to your convictions is impressive in its own way.

Facial recognition to identify passengers on public transit or anyone caught on a police officer’s body camera is mentioned in the article. Everyone else is not doing that. Everyone else does not have concentration camps and re-education facilities for Muslims and other rural cultures in mainland China. You are delusional to suggest that China is a victim of the free press. It’s the other way around.

The joke was popularized by an American TV show. It’s become one of those things people know they can trot out for easy upvotes, likes, etc. Most Christmas movies are family-oriented but Die Hard is an action movie so saying it’s one’s favorite Christmas movie is meant to demonstrate the distinctiveness of one’s personality. It’s like how people made jokes about sporks and “le earth”. Maybe in a few years it’ll come full circle and big data will help us to determine if sporks are closer to spoons or forks.

I read through some of the Beginner section that I thought seemed inappropriate for beginners and found a number of grammar and punctuation errors. While trying to navigate the file I found that the page numbering shown in the Table of Contents is off by two pages. His advice on "difficult people" sounds like he is talking about a single, specific person but is doing so in a vague way and expects that to function as actionable advice. That seems like a common pattern as I look back on the rest of the section. He talks about what were probably specific events or situations in a very non-specific way and by doing so falls short of providing useful insight. It would be more effective to write about the details than to try to adapt the story to a common experience.