zipppy

Subtext: "...even a homeless person."

Hmm.

Maybe this is just the cynic in me talking, but if his intentions were truly selfless, why are we aware of him and aware of his actions?

Somewhere along the line he helped make the world aware of his own actions.

Or, even worse, kickstarter could actually become more risky if more people use it to scam people out of money.

That's incredible to me...even at $65 it's less than $10 a day. Half the price would be like $1.25 a meal.

I spend almost that simply for lunch each day (sushi, sandwiches...food on-the-go), so for me spending $65 a week would pretty easily save money. Makes me curious how many people (in the U.S.) spend less than $65 a week on food.

Agreed. I abhor popups of any kind as it is, but to present the false choice that a user either [will subscribe to what you're offering] or [doesn't care about improving] makes me put on my "really?" face.

edit: Same with the free trial offer. The no option says "No, I like to pay for trials". I'm not choosing whether to pay for a free trial or not, I'm choosing whether to participate in a free trial or not. Ugh.

A sense of achievement comes from two different places when comparing GTA to real life. 10k in real life doesn't feel like an accomplishment to people simply because they don't have 500k in the bank, it's also/mostly because it's usually hard to earn and takes a significant investment of time and effort.

Also, there are no real consequences in GTA for running out of money, like there are in real life. People want to win lotteries for the security (which ironically they so often piss away if they do win), something that people don't need in a video game.

If it was a 'clean' hit, why would there be record of a homicide? From what I've read, it sounds like a clean hit could/would be made to look like an accident.

Not only is the number given misleading, but the factors that contribute to that misleading number are (1) questionable, and (2) unrealistic themselves.

I scored a 0, so it is possible; there may still be a bug (perhaps my order was wrong but it still gave me a perfect score for some reason), but it is possible.

Wait, are you saying that the legal system would be improved if people could sue each other over loud music, talking, or babies?

I could be misunderstanding. If not, that sounds insufferable.

However, websites can't control what browsers their users use, nor can they control how those browsers give feedback regarding load times.

They can control their own code.

Not saying that websites should implement this, but companies aren't going to want to point to browsers being the problem. Every company wants to (try to) control their users' experiences, for better or worse.

Reminds me of this: "I don't disgree, but..." and then they go on to disagree.

My answer is 'yes', that those two are equal. And that it doesn't matter if the first try is specified -- it is an equal chance for either of those to occur on the first try.

If that is wrong, I'd love to know why. Can someone summarize why entropy would make those sequences unequally random for a fair coin? I guess it's not clear to me why they'd have 'different entropy values'.

I'm not convinced that use cases determine Google's acceptance of how the service is used.

e.g. If someone uses the service to download & upload 100gb+ of data a day, and somehow it's actually for personal use, I suspect that Google would restrict them.

If so, the spirit of the terms isn't as much to delineate between types of use as much as it is to delineate between amounts of use.

In my naivete, I don't know why this is true. What is it about staying at a place for a long time that makes a person less desirable?

I ask in part because I've been at my current employer for 9 years -- should someone in my spot be looking for a new job?

Typically when being run as a desktop, it would be plugged in. Maybe not always, but I don't see people expecting to regularly use a desktop computer off of battery power.

The built-in Amazon ads are enough for me to not use it, however.

I think those reviews are zero indication of where it will go.

That isn't to say that Amazon art will do well, I just doubt that people writing those reviews represent the demand for art or the feelings of people who might buy from Amazon.

If it's your main source of income, it must be making some money. Can you use that to pay someone to take care of it while you're away?

There's got to be some kind of middle ground between 'taking a loss' and 'main source of income'. Even if it's not as much as someone would make in a different job, I bet some people would be willing to help you out for a small stipend.

Good luck!!

Those aren't mutually exclusive. You can find meaning in work & in spending time with family, etc.

No one thinks it's bad to find meaning in relationships, or whatever.

It sounds to me like they are saying that they don't care about the economic and social benefits. (S)he would rather those benefits go to people worse off.

The wealthier a country becomes, the better standards will become. In short (understatement), because there are a finite number of people in the country (you cannot hire an infinite number of "low-cost employees").

My one feature request would be to have the word proceeding 'fuck' as an argument:

/:thing/:from Will return content of the form 'Fuck :thing. -:from' e.g. /SaaS/Foaas will return 'Fuck SaaS. -Foaas'

Google isn't distributing translations. They're simply providing a tool to generate translations.

You could type out a book in a text editor, but that isn't the same situation as this website.

(also, I hope the charges (if any) are dropped, I just don't think this is the same as google translate)

That's a good point.

Scale for sure. Not just in terms of how far they were able to travel, but how big everything is and how many resources they would take to build, not to mention time.

Even if we knew exactly how to build everything in the movie, it would still take a TON of time to build it. Now start in the future and work backwards -- it's simply unrealistic.

That isn't to say that we won't have tons of things even 100 years from now that we can't imagine currently. I just tend to think the unimaginable is more easily attained than the evolution of those things already made.

I tend to have an opposite reaction -- I get annoyed with futurism that is unrealistic compared to how far in the future the story takes place.

Even Star Trek is completely unrealistic - it takes place less than 25 decades from now. There's no way we have space vehicles so advanced so soon.

(edit: even ignoring 'warp speed')

I'm unfamiliar with Lyft -- do Lyft drivers only pick people up on their way somewhere? Or do they go out of their way to pick people up?

If it's the latter, then it's not really helping the environment much more than cabs, correct? For me, that means taking a cheaper option (and supporting someone's profession, rather than someone who's just making extra money on the side), is better.

This sentiment sets off red flags for me. If people assume that cars with a pink mustaches are safe, it will be that much easier for somebody to take advantage of a false sense of security.

The facility is apparently FDA-approved -- this says nothing about the product itself.

edit: I will probably try it myself as a replacement for some meals, so I hate to simply sound like another voice piling on, but it seems pretty clear to me (whether it was intentional or not) that the "FDA-approved" comment is misleading.

Expulsion isn't really the worst of it, either. Because this is Florida, if she was convicted of a felony she would lose her right to vote.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=2...

Imagine losing your right to vote, forever, because of this incident.