roopeshv

i am only here to look for a reference to "lighten up"

i would say it's a difference, but opt-in is always a good way to go. I always (atleast, i think so) I make most optins consciously).

I would say everyme has a good TOS/Priv Stmt, compared to google, if it says "this privacy policy stands forever, and will not be changed". I know you can't promise that, and I will not ask you to, but that's only case where I would have more trust for keeping the data with you compared to google's. Or I would trust goog's policies better it addresses the legal aspect of it, while being humanly readable and understandable.

The only thing that differentiates you (as in everyme, most references are same)and goog is they have to cover base for billions of people they are handling.

Even if it's snarky (though I didn't make it so), why would someone downvote it rather than disagree with a comment (HN guidelines please). Please downvote if it doesn't add to discussion. What we had above is discussion.

atleast from the way it is written; i guess sexism, racism, eliticism, trolls, may be some narcissism as well

just law of large numbers at work

their TOS refers to privacy policy. dont' read things in isolations and without context.

No. it's not opt out. it's "how do you want to share it?". Tell me where exactly this "opt-out" is, i would like to know.

No, I don't give permission by using the site. That's blatanly dishonest to say that. They already mention that already.

I understand you wrote the new TOS, but I'm not sure how you are understanding Goog's TOS. It's always opt-in. probably the only opt out i know of is from their search crawler for websites.

No. it's not opt out. it's "how do you want to share it?". Tell me where exactly this "opt-out" is, i would like to know.

No, I don't give permission by using the site. That's blatanly dishonest to say that. They already mention that already.

I understand you wrote the new TOS, but I'm not sure how you are understanding Goog's TOS. It's always opt-in. probably the only opt out i know of is from their search crawler for websites.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ read "information we share" section. google takes advertisers money to match, "not sell", the ads on your data.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ read "Your Content in our Services" about who owns the data.

Google does have a very good TOS, protecting itself and also the users. The problem is no one has ever read their TOS properly. If you want to understand the TOS you have to read it in whole, and not just selected statements. I didn't have to back it up because anyone can read google's TOS because it is obvious in the face when it read it. Does that answer why I wrote what i wrote.

The reason I wrote that is because I have read their TOS, esp. since 50% of my digital life is in google mail and I had to be careful when I made that choice. I make choice not based on who's using "plain language/easy to read", but who's covering the most bases.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ please read "information we share" section

if you don't agree, reply. don't downvote

exactly like google's terms, minus the legalese

why is this reply being downvoted? Damn it people, if you don't agree, reply. don't downvote.

(EDIT: shawnc's answer was being downvoted at the time of writing, now its' in green)

well, all those $5s add up when you buy enough apps, and that's the whole economics of the app market. you spend small amounts on enough apps, and you won't even realize how much you have spent compared to one time payment to all apps as a bundle.

Also I never understood the appeal of instapaper, what exactly does it do better than pocket? I never used instapaper, so any answer would be appreciated.

to the people who downvoted: downvoting is not the way to say you disagree.

yes, it is a random person. an engineer in facebook is also a random person. what you are confusing a random person with is person on higher rung of career ladder

i stopped reading articles with "brogrammer" in them. it's overused to the point of absurdity right now.

it's the code word for "any interaction with women i do not approve of"

i would like to know what is a healthy grieving process.

Any correlation made by glieck with his way of living is purely his own interpretation of things, and not feynman's. So, you idea that the idea of grief not being repressed doesn't stand up doesn't stand up (yes, read that sentence carefully).

You are not his mind, nor a psychic (no, not psychotherapist) to tell why he did what he did.

If you ever read his "autobiographies" you'll see he's been very well received by women around him (since his princeton years), not after arlene's death.

As much as we need compassion, let not make cases for clinics and making sheep out of everyone. Consider this for size, the exact same article replacing compassion with gullibility (and few changed sentences) to make the exact same case.

========

Humans take pride in solving problems.

Better products and better solutions mean a better life. Intelligence is considered the fuel that propels humanity forward. After all intelligence is what makes us different from other animals. If you are not intelligent (and that includes creativity) you will be considered a failure.

Why is our society obsessed with intelligence?

It creates science and technology which is used to amplify our human emotions, whether positive or negative. Progress, fueled by intelligence as a single driving force only, is like driving a car without GPS. There is no guidance system that will take humanity to a better place. Just having better and faster iPads and HDTVs will not help humanity.

Our human mind is capable of more than just intelligent problem solving. It has a capacity to feel accept things because it feels good. gullibility is the untapped potential of the human mind that can be effectively used to feel happy without care for reality. Our world is plagued with problems that can not be solved by intelligence alone.

We need more gullibility in this world.

I would like to imagine a different world. A world where we give as much importance to gullibility as we do to intelligence. How would that world look like ? Lets imagine it together.

In this world, gullibility is considered a skill that can be developed similar to our analytical skills.

Gullibility Quotient (GQ) will be invented to quantify the level of gullibility in an individual. Psychology departments would create better and accurate ways to quantify and improve gullibility.

When a new baby is born, parents will make their babies more gullibilityate by showing them pictures of gullibile people and telling them stories that will inspire gullibility. Parents would become more curious and excited to find out their children’s GQs.

Parents will purchase “Baby Glenn Beck” toys along with “Baby Einstein” toys for their kids.

Schools will test their students on gullibility and report to parents if they find a low GQ.

Financial sectors will update their rating systems and rate companies on their gullibility, socially responsible business practices and profitability.

Gullibility Deficiency Syndrome (GDS) will be treated just like other disorders that affects people’s lives, such as alcoholism or depression. Patients will enroll into GD clinics to improve their gullibility levels.

It is time for us to take gullibility seriously in every aspect of our lives. We want to free it from the shackles of reason and view it as a necessary human skill. Let’s do it together and start now, gullibily.

actually he didn't repress his grief. he understood that grief for her doesn't change that she's dead, and other people bugging him about her death doesn't make it any better. So he decides he might as well just continue doing what he was doing, because how he deals with her death is not his colleagues concern

yes. he does say "he talks to her", but explains that he knows she's dead, and he only talks to the thought of her, rather than seeing her. that's one seriously funny section of his book.

wait. why is this being downvoted?

i think the point factorial is making is: this doesn't account the hours, and input one puts in, but it's just straight out how much for same position (not same job).

but i paraphrase

first you open your eyes

oh, fucking stop with the victimization complex.

1) about the wage gap. i agree that there is a wage difference, but that's not the point we are discussing. we are discussing if people are openly welcoming women or not. so, are people welcoming women to participate more than men? if women are still less in number, is still ok to blame one or two idiots who ruin it. if you are a white male who doesn't drink, would you stop going to conference where you find a non-white female who made ruckus while drunk? how many men would stop?

2) wage gap is hugely debated because all it takes is how much you get paid, rather than any other condition (hours, vacations planned/unplanned, etc). i don't have full details, and would not agree with that. even then it's not full data.

3) also i give in to women being harassed, the point is how much is being exagerrated. some women just complain about people putting fuck in the presentation slides (case in point: dhh's slides from some years ago). we should avoid alcohol then where people get offended by people drinking alcohol at conferences.

4) about the timeline. a) do you think games which involve men getting shot at doesn't invite men to play games, did it stigmatize them from getting into games? i know that rape game is offensive, but like every women is looking at that game and goes, fuck this computers shit, i won't every be a programmer. b) how many times have you heard idiot, stupid, at conference and people got offended at a conference and never came back to the conf again? (in reference to bitch being used in multiple incident, pornstar in slides etc). c) there are some trolls who harass women/women confs. do you know much zed shaw gets trolled? i don't see him complaining about how uninviting the community is and blaming them for not getting things done (also, he would not agree with any point I make, but that's not the point of this reply) d) there is a difference between getting offended by something and anything.

let me tell you a story: there was a famous author who wrote a book once, and at the book signing, one group of women came to talk to him, and told him that they were happy that they didn't find a single offensive word in the book. he said he was happy they know what they were looking for.

also, i agree some women are being harassed, but blaming solely these incidents as the reason for lack of women is misrepresentative and just making women objects to whom people have to provide support to get them in, rather than making them people who want to get in.

no matter what my point is: if you (men or women) want to get something, and can't do it, don't blame it on other people for that not happening.

having 10 anecdotes is not data. and opinion is not data. you do understand that much right. if i were to give you anecdotes, probably i can pull off a hundred of those right of the internet (probably there's a subreddit for that too), arguing the exact opposite.

of all the people saying how they are so pro-evidence are falling back to these one off anecdotes, just upsets me. no you didnot provide evidence, you showed a case.

if a gender has to be given a easier option to be included just because of their gender, what kind of stupid equality is that.

fuck. same can be said of geeks who don't speak up. there is no one advocating for them. if the stage is open, and you don't take the fucking chance to get in, don't complain.

In summary: "I refuse to tolerate assholes, only if it's not steve jobs or cult figure in my cult."

(not aimed at jacob, he wrote this in a different context. but this is aimed at xando who submitted it)

"have evidence to back that up" the cop out for things you don't agree with.

how the fuck did you even conclude that they have better things to care about than feelings means being assholes. do you have evidence to back up that's what he means?