sjwright

Implied? No, not even with the most uncharitable interpretation did tombert even imply that being poor makes you "crazy" or that being crazy makes you a criminal. A hindered ability to think rationally might only make one more impulsive or less able to consider long term consequences.

You are literally accusing the writer of implying things which rely upon a context of your own making, not theirs.

There are many nasty feedback loops caused by severe poverty. Even the most basic things like being able to show up for a job interview in an arbitrary location at an arbitrary time wearing presentable clothing and a relaxed demeanour — try doing that when you can barely afford to use public transport and your daily schedule is rigidly monopolised by whatever terrible job/gig you currently rely upon to literally survive.

For all the criticisms of UBI, I think it would be a net win simply because it eliminates the significant time wasted in maintaining welfare entitlement.

When did tombert assume that poor = "crazy" = criminal? It's a bit unkind to take general thoughts about psychological pathways and unfairly reify them with the use of equality symbols.

> you can’t even reload the page for the user

Can you explain why you'd want to do this? At first blush it seems like a terrible idea to allow extensions to reload pages.

HyperCard would have been a great platform if it was aggressively iterated. Despite being way ahead of its time in 1987, it died because it stood still and the world eventually passed it by.

And to be even fairer, user experience consistency isn't one of Linux's selling points. While there is some limited consistency within individual graphical shells, the Linux ecosystem naturally favours a diversity of opinions instead.

Because Apple interfaces are highly opinionated and generally fairly consistent, learning to do things the Apple way is a valid life choice for many people.

That's a red herring. These 3rd party tweaks don't make the Mac desktop experience objectively "nicer", they are tweaks to make it more familiar to people used to other, non-Mac desktop environments.

Personally I consider the stock macOS desktop experience to be perfectly fine.

A shame, because as test cases go that wouldn’t have been a terrible one.

The author could well have been right, but underestimated how much economic interdependence was required for his thesis to hold.

Sorry if I was unclear. 5 kWh/day of idle. That’s how much it uses when we’re literally not home and all I’ve left on is the networking gear, appliances on standby, etc.

My average actual occupied usage is closer to 20-25 kWh/day, varying mainly by AC load.

Remarkable. I’m in Sydney, my house sounds similar by description but I have gas hot water and stovetop. My house uses over 5 kWh/day for ambient/idle power alone.

IMHO Windows UI peaked with Windows 2000.[0] The main difference being that it eliminated redundant lines and reduced contrast where it wasn't needed. This improved the visual signal-to-noise ratio. I recall no significant regressions.

[0] Functionally identical to Windows XP with the luna skin disabled, as well as Windows Server 2003.

My understanding is that economic interdependence deserves the bulk of the credit for this relative peace. Tying the economic prosperity of nations together makes it harder to rationalise physical conflict.

But perhaps we can also thank global communications for making it that little bit harder (though still by no means impossible) to sufficiently otherise far away populations.

A joke I first saw on Twitter:

  LED status key
  Green - online
  Red   - error
  Amber - busy
  Blue  - modern

(Source: https://twitter.com/deviantollam/status/1345143016307113985 )

I wouldn’t apologise. I strongly respect the social rules of hacker news but they are by no means perfect and tend to break down in the face of a well calibrated troll.

This particular variant is the verbose non sequitur anti-pattern. It’s effective because it generally can’t be identified at a glance. It requires a lot of contextualised reading. This means it gets few down votes, the canonical sign of disapproval here.

In the UK, children’s clothing is exempt from their VAT sales tax.

(Yet another way that unusually short people can lord it over the rest of us.)

I don’t think is right to analogise between clothing and healthcare. Everyone needs clothes; specific needs are highly correlated with climate. While this is also true of some basic functions of healthcare (dental care being the most obvious example) most of the very expensive parts of healthcare (surgery, cancer, etc) are not similarly predictable and therefore fit the insurance model better.

And the way to make insurance model work best is to make it universal, mandatory and governed by cost efficiency rather than shareholder profit. Better still, a universal system becomes a monopsony buyer, able to assess value with domain expertise then demand and receive lower prices for drugs and medical equipment.

If you can describe how what I said fits the informal fallacy of begging the question, I'll concede all disagreements, accept that you're correct in everything and donate AU$500 to a charity of your choice.

If you can describe anything about my argument which soundly qualifies as circular, I'll concede all disagreements with you, accept that you're correct in everything you have said and I'll even donate AU$500 to a charity of your choice.

> It's clear now that you're just here for the conflict

Says the person who thinks that basic, pro forma civility requires a "bullshit budget."

You wrote all that to tacitly admit that you had failed to convey your point effectively. Cool.

Actual problem: believing that the distinction between those two is relevant.

I didn’t offer a diagnosis.

> Consider this: I have a high emotional IQ

Given that you felt the need to say that, you might want to reconsider whether your powers of self-diagnosis are as accurate as you previously thought.

> I just don't have the kind of bullshit budget required...

> ...if I'm going to have to start dropping things on the floor...

...then you've already failed. The goal is to never get to that point in the first place. Perhaps if you spent some of your "bullshit budget" sooner, it wouldn't have even occurred to you to make plans for throwing a tantrum.

Civility is incredibly cheap and has a multiplier effect on most other human resource metrics—such as productivity, enthusiasm and loyalty.

> I'll note that you didn't start your response here with pleasantries, and no one else has, either.

There are obvious differences between expressing an opinion and asking others to do something for you. Understanding that distinction makes this apparent contradiction entirely explicable.

And they are.

That's a non sequitur. What you have cited isn't Tesla giving its employees Elon's Tesla shares. Yes, Tesla did offer Elon share options. He still has to pay for them with his own money. The reason why these options are lucrative is precisely because the company (funded substantially by Elon placing his own wealth on the line) has risen under his stewardship.

Great, so bring a union in. Maybe median wages will briefly jump 10% or so in response to threats. Within five years the median wage probably won't be any higher. Probably lower if union action rattles investor confidence and Tesla's access to capital shrinks, leading to less future investment, in turn leading to less profit and fewer jobs at the company.

With all this talk of bringing in a bloated Detroit union bureaucracy into Fremont, you might as well plead with Tesla to focus less on US manufacturing over the next decade. Yay, everyone wins!

That makes no sense. Elon's Tesla stock isn't Tesla's to give away to its employees.

And that appears to be another non sequitur. It was Elon's personal assets which caused those paychecks to exist in the first place. Elon has risked over 100% of his personal wealth on multiple occasions and there are moments in Tesla's history where if the company had failed, Elon would have fallen back into deep debt.

It's easy to see all the change caused by a union; it's harder to see all the change that didn't happen because of the union.

It is unreasonable to equate imposing something upon others and "imposing" nothing upon others. When all else is equal, the higher bar ought to be placed upon the imposition of additional layers of bureaucracy in other people's lives.