tokensimian

1) I believe free speech has it's limits, like shouting "fire" in a theater. I was rejecting your statement that "telling people not to swear" is morally equivalent to "swearing". One is restricting another person's right to expression. The other is using the right to self-expression.

2) take the word "fuck" for example. I don't find it offensive in the least. It's a fascinatingly versatile word. If someone stubs their toe, and shouts "fuck", I am not offended. If someone looks me in the eye, points their finger, and says, "fuck you", I am offended. The word is the same, the context is different. The offense seems therefore to be derived from the context, not from the word.

3) No, again back to point #1. The presence of someone's offspring, in no way can or should obligate me to follow their moral values. Asking me to refrain from swearing because of delicate children's ears is someone imposing their moral code to determine my behavior.

I 100% agree with your last 2 paragraphs. I alter my language depending on context, anyone with a modicum of social skills does that. I was just responding to your original individual bullet points.

To add a little levity, I recommend everyone watch the YouTube video about the versatility of "fuck"[1]. Of course, please use headphones in order to not offend anyone around you. (sorry, had to be slightly tongue in cheek there -- hope you don't mind me poking a little fun)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LZSUYoNPMs

I encourage you to read the wikipedia article on the settlement of the Americas, mostly because it's fun[0].

The landbridge theory has its supporters, but what's really interesting is the gaps in knowledge, and other theories about multiple waves of settlement, or settlement directly from seafaring peoples.

It's really just a fascinating mix of fields. You do yourself a disservice by reducing the settlement of the americas to 2 sentences like that.

I do believe the claim of less genetic diversity amongst indigenous Americans is correct. The excellent book "1491" even discusses how this could have contributed to the spread of disease: less genetic diversity meant less overall population protection.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas

1) put another way, people against profanity are trying to control what other individuals say. People into the right to be profane are expressing their freedom to swear.

2) I cannot. I can be offended by things people say, but language itself is not offensive.

3) No, it's not my responsibility to censor myself to support archaic beliefs about other people's children.

This is good!

It sucks as a learner. But for science and progress of knowledge, it provides an inefficient but lacks-false-positives mechanism.

It sucks for Liebniz, but was a positive for our understanding

They have banners, search ads, content ads, and native advertising. Some of their inventory is served by bing, so if you use both bing adcenter and yahoo/gemini, you may be competing against yourself.

But I just launched a yahoo/gemini campaign 2 weeks ago, for leadgen on web. They definitely have more than banners.

(Also, I've found banner ads can refer to either the format [728x90 graphic] or the model [pay per view/CPM/CPV]. They offer the gamut just like everyone else, even the small shady players.

To say that yahoo just has banners is very incorrect.

You are correct.

However, the sites that do the overkill of a sticky header tend to also have poorly thought out site navigation and user experiences.

Let's say on a normal site, killing any absolute nav would result in a 5%* decrease in UX.

On a site like this, killing any absolute nav might result in a 5% increase in UX.

The cost of the skimmer is insignificant, but the labor to replace it adds friction and is going to reduce the number of active skimmers. To replace the removed skimmer will also expose the criminal to more risk of getting caught, especially if the police are aware of the removal and can set up a sting or something.

So while the economic ROI is so high the behavior will continue, it does slow them down.

Not a complete fix by any means, but adding friction to their criminal behavior.

Ensuring that skimmers need to evolve frequently is a valid counter-strategy because it increases their cost of goods stolen.

This assumes the police have competency, concern, and resources.

It's not necessarily punitive (although it could be), but they will unlikely receive similar negotiating advantages as they did before.

Except previously it was negotiating with a number of smaller entities.

Now it will be negotiating with a block of them. The UK just willingly decreased their leverage so they had free will.

Thank you, from all of America. You managed to be completely embarrasing in your 2016 election cycle, before we are really able to be shockingly shameful in front of you.

Brits are polite to the end.

Exactly. It's leverage, not abuse. What's the difference? Eye of the beholder.

Regardless of judgement, you have to look at leverage. That's what really matters in terms of outcomes.

I believe it's important for individuals to build character based on morals (ie judge leverage for abuse), but that's like suggesting thermodynamics law 2 just isn't very nice.

You're right: it sucks. But wishing it were otherwise is not super relevant.

Sorry to jump in uninvited... but that's what HN is.

I think you're mischaracterizing the situation.

Perspective 1: UK is breaking up with the EU, not vice-versa.

P2: EU gets some adv/dis-advantages by including UK specifically P3: UK had some advantages/disadvantages from being part of EU P4: EU has incentive outside of British sitch to stay unified

My (american) perspective is that Britain should stay in the EU because while their direct adv to leave may outweigh direct disadv to stay, they are subject to P4, which is to make an example of someone who leaves.

Exclude your judgement of right, wrong, and what should be. Look simply at leverage.

I have no idea what your original comment is referring to, but from my perspective you just lost the game of "let's not appear completely insane in front of strangers."

That's an ineffective way of communicating your point.

Parent's "a few cents" and what I pay in SoCal for a can of beans ($1.40 regular price; $0.99 on sale) indicate a different scope.

You project a 1:3 ratio. Cheaper estimates of chip cost, more expensive beans suggest the other end of that ratio is $0.03:1.40 indicate the chip cost around 2%, which could potentially be recouped by better inventory practices.

If you are not a US immigration attorney, which your profile does not seem to indicate once I traced through a couple github profiles, you should probably resist the urge to be a top level commenter on questions submitted to OP.

Sorry if this is abrupt, but it sounds like you are frequently posting your interpretation of legislation. US immigration realities are frequently different. Even if you've had your own experience, it would probably be more useful to OP to hear from the expert rather than one person's experience.

You have repeatedly c/p this answer in this thread. I apologize if this comes off as rude, but why are you doing that? What is your experience or qualifications to provide such advice?

As a US citizen an HN community member, this super sucks.

What is the likelihood that someone is deported within a 5-10 year period for having an app on the iOS/Android stores, provided that app isn't like a huge company? (eg. < $50k annual revenue)

I ask specifically because its silly for the US to have those restrictions. We (I) want people like this to join our economy!

How can I help?

I'm not sure if you saw this other thread, but I thought it answered one of your questions so was worth sharing. Sounds like Aurora wasn't stable when this migration began, so they did the migration with an eye towards the next migration (to Aurora).

Sorry about the c/p but I don't see a permalink on lapitopi's comment.

lapitopi 1 day ago I work on the Netflix Billing Team. PostgreSQL was indeed a very attractive option, but we wanted to keep a path to Aurora open. When we were working on the migration, Aurora was still in beta, so instead of going to Aurora directly, we decided run our own MySQL instances on EC2.

edit: begun/began

FWIW, the US Government's regulations for civil service workers (civilians working for the federal gov't) are pretty strict, and are often used as a basis for private companies. (EG, mileage reimbursement is usually a rate set by the feds.)

Their policy is business class for international flights over 8 hours.

Given that, I think it would be seen as common/acceptable to mimic.

That's a pretty specific set of situational criteria by which to evaluate the head of a company that does a whole lot of different things.

IANAL but suspect disparagement is defined in such a way that a corporation's attorneys could prove this type of comment caused harm to the company, and thus meets the definition.

How do you see the timeframe effecting wear and tear on a car? (In a general situation, I mean; not necessarily down a dirt road every day.)

Take 2 cars. They each drove 70k miles; car A took 1 year, car B took 4 years.

It seems to me that car A will have less wear and tear simply because it's much more likely they were putting highway miles on their car. Aren't highway miles easier on all the components?

isnt age a protected class?

Seems reasonable, seeing as age is a protected class.

It's a common way of expressing teh question, does the population serve the economy, or does the economy serve the population?

Put another way, should countries protect workers or owners?

(A false dichotomy, of course, and an oversimplification to boot.)

No worries, friend! We both learned something. Please do not let your unfamiliarity interrupt your contributions; different perspectives such asyours are why I come here. To hell if anyone makes you feel different!

While you make no explicit claim, I suppose the responder was reacting to your opener of "I maintain".

That implies you have been saying this all along, in a forum that we would expect to have heard it, but yet you have not been heeded.

In my perspective, there is an element to your statement that is claiming authority, thus making you appear as a self-proclaimed expert.

Why do you live in the modern world after this experience?

Average is (typically) the arithmetic mean of a sample. In a sample of one (you), the mean is the sample. It sounds awkward, and would be a red flag that someone either didn't know what they were talking about, or were trying to mislead me (outside of your situation, and probably others).