voidz

Nice! It's one of the things still on my to-do list.

To me, Mastodon is the next Twitter, and there is a lot less nastiness going on because the character limit per message is 400 characters, leading to a lot more nuanced and well thought out conversations.

It also helps that it is a decentralised platform, so there is no central censorship going on like on Twitter, which has the incentive to earn money and where the user is the consumer.

It's not all bad. A lot of great self study videos on YouTube, like learning languages.

Doesn't matter. The fork occurred, so they can either give the duplicated amounts to their customers or keep them to themselves and who knows, sell all of the BCC somewhere else for all we know. To me, the latter just seems to be unrightful profit for coinbase.

It's only a problem for Orwellian / Brave New World type states.

- "Ok, google!"

- 3 seconds later... bhleep!

- "Define irri"beepbeep

- looks at screen . o O (hmm some kind of timeout.. let's push that mic button on the screen)

- presses button bleep!

- "Define irrit"bleebeep! Screen turns white

- 6 seconds later 'irrit' google search results.

Yeah... I'm gonna save myself the blood pressure increase and pass on this marvellous opportunity.

You remind me of the Dutch railroad system. It has a monopoly despite having been privatized, and the majority stockholder is.... the Dutch government.

I find one of the worst arguments I come across is "it is <year>" because it doesn't actually mean anything.

How do you embed beacons into your emails?

What's this?

I love different characters, so if þ and ð were to be reintroduced, I would fully embrace it. I don't þink it would happen ðough, because it does read really weird to ðe untrained mind. Kind of like a 'b' and a 'd'.

I wonder if I even used them right.

Awh, it doesn't do Japanese kana. I wanted to make a "Learning Japanese - for those who don't wanna", with

「ウンーリダバア！」

i.e. "unreadable" at the top.

Steve Jobs himself gave him the title "The Podfather"

There are all kinds of troll factories, so from Russia too, sure. No problem with that. I just think WaPo and NYTimes are also troll factories. And there are many others. Especially with the word 'troll' being used in increasingly broad senses and increasingly more often.

Ok. Gosh I got that one pretty wrong, didn't I.

Wright Brothers thought they could fly.

This would make a nice template text.

You're arguing opinions as facts and making me debate semantics. I don't agree that this was trolling by the least.

Also – since these are just opinions, they are worth equally much. The truth isn't something you or anyone else owns. And what do you mean, 'deserves.'

This isn't trolling. This person is arguing, is what I think. Arguing civilly which is what this is, should be possible out here in the boonies (whith which I mean HN, in the most amical way).

A judge having "near limitless power," that sure sounds fancy, or scary depending how you look at it. But ok, I'll play: What's it all gonna cost if they decide to wield their limitless power. Financially and/or otherwise. Is it in or against their best interest to pursue?

Because I think a lot of judiciaries are just like companies in the sense of not wanting to draw unwanted attention, risk high costs or worse – having to deal with awkward situations at posh drinking events — think I got that last part from a movie.

On the Internet?!

> I've ranted about this here before, and I'll rant again.

You make one hell of a rant, man. Props.

Folks, half of this conversation is now so greyed out I can't even properly read it. Regardless of whether you agree or not - please stop downvoting. A person's asking legitimate questions. Don't silence the questions. Don't punish people who just talk within the discourse.

There's no one being attacked here. No one's being objectionally rude. It's just an exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Let those be.

Thank you for the useful insights.

I worry that the chilling effect, and people self-silencing/self-limiting, are already happening to an extreme degree. One might even regard this law as an expression of that. So I worry that this law is fruit of what is happening, not the other way around. I wonder whether there isn't already too much self-censorship going on, especially with people who just have their own nuanced (harmless) ideas.

HackerNews to me sits is remarkably well inside the eye of numerous storms. Really happy about that.

Outside from here though people might just risk so much when all they want is to try and express those (apparently "arguably") harmless thoughts. The risk of falling pray to all kinds of social dangers can be very scary. Not worth it at all, in fact. So devolves the discourse which obviously gives rise to agression and spite as the most popular clothing of free speech.

To an extent we're doing this to ourselves more than the governments are to blame. I'm not arguing that this law is any kind of solution to our problems. Au contraire - what I'm just saying is that individuals in positions of authority get more than their fair share of spite and hate, so, this is what happens.

Yet however also, not long ago the public discourses that take place at present were unfathomable! The whole world being able to talk together on to such an immense scale via thing called the Internet - which, somewhat hilariously ironically, apparently should be called just internet without a 'the' and capital I from now on, per decree put forth by some editors.

But never mind that. Point is, when we do a thing like this (give ourselves 'an internet' -o, hey!), pain is just bound to start flowing and we should be careful with that. Our social evolution is what feels to be at stake here, with the way things are headed.

Isn't this called 'rackateering' and prohibited?

Perfect. Thank you!

Hugely unpopular opinion time, especially on HackerNews, but I'm just going to say it: I don't believe any of it. I don't believe WaPo, I don't believe the/their "Russian interference with the elections" narrative, and in fact, if there is one country that has interfered with elections all over the world, the USA would be it. Now the narrative has been shifty to an extreme, but this attempt to - again - make Obama appear to almost be some kind of fantastic leader, is just another poor and perverse attempt to turn history and current events into something it isn't.

No.

The thing that bugs me most about your comment is that it introduces fallacious groupthink (argument based on authority I guess) that makes it difficult for anyone with a different opinion to speak out: "if you trust such and so (i.c. Alex Jones), you're a moron a priori." This type of reasoning should be discouraged on HN in the same way that "did you even read"-type comments should be (and are) discouraged, because I think that both stifle civil and open discussion. And both of these things can be said in better, less excluding, and less hostile ways.

Does not ship to the Netherlands... Meh!