Niten
Niten on Hacker News
Yes and like every good conspiracy theorist knows, the inability to point to evidence is all the more proof of the conspiracy.
Leave. You're a net-negative to this website.
Your "blah blah blah" comment below really speaks to your level of sophistication, on this and I'm sure other topics too.
You have no place in polite society. Get lost.
This is probably to be expected, given that America is a democracy where one can reasonably land on one side or the other of contentious domestic issues. Whereas Iran is an Islamist theocracy.
Additionally, it's crucial to recognize how Hamas's health ministry numbers never distinguish between combatant and civilian deaths
This is dangerously unhinged hyperbole. What comment by DHH says that you, personally, don't "belong in public spaces"? Be specific.
> One person who was a major funder of RubyCentral pulled funding because they were upset at RubyCentral platforming DHH
Yes. To de-obfuscate, they sent a message that he should be cancelled. It backfired spectacularly, as it rightfully should have. Good.
Why? Who is she? She doesn't even write with her full name
A reliable source of unhelpful vagueposts, teasing things with more apparent interest in creating mystery than in providing information. Like the "Lost" of tech bloggers.
Why should one trust her? What's her full name and the reason for deferring to her expertise?
And yes I'm aware her posts have made it to the top of HN many times in the past. That I've seen, they've all been unhelpful vague-posts like this one.
Maybe she's actually a real expert I should be listening to! But layer upon layer of vague "if you know, you know" do not make that case.
> The article you linked to is pure propaganda - Hamas' charter changed a long, long time ago
No, it's not "propaganda". It's factual reporting that happens to be inconvenient to Hamas apologists.
It's also corroborated by the atrocities against innocent civilians that these monsters gleefully filmed themselves committing on October 7th, such as attacking children with grenades.
Frankly, because even the Nazis weren't as much of a death cult as present-day Islamists.
Media Bias Fact Check ranks Reason as a "Right-Center" biased website with a "High" rating for factual reporting:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/They certainly approach stories with an editorial perspective, but they're generally factually reliable and hardly "incredibly slanted".
Is this a principle you apply universally? For example, do you oppose U.S. companies providing technical support for Ukraine's justified war aims, such as Starlink?
I've seen no indication that simply protesting is seen as "not ok". But trespassing on private property, or worse blocking bridges, goes quite beyond "protest" and freedom of speech.
By the same logic, a far-right person could complain about a "veneer of neutrality" in the mainstream press's coverage of, say, the Proud Boys. But that would be ridiculous.
Some things really are objectively stupid as hell.
It's a device for smuggling in a new concept (enforcement of equal outcomes) using a word that sounds similar enough to "equality", representing an older and unobjectionable concept (equal opportunity), that it should provoke minimal opposition.
This is a tangent, but what's the financial rationale for setting up this kind of an arrangement instead of a donation?
Is there any data on how many of these new users are WhatsApp refugees vs. Parler refugeees vs. some other category?
In principle it shouldn't matter. But I'm worried userbase demographics will determine from which quarter the next legislative threat to end-to-end encryption emerges.
Does that create an account with end-to-end encryption? If not, it's not a replacement for Signal at all.
> Parler sought out extremists from the get go
Can you share evidence of this? Because it clashes with all the messaging I've seen from Parler.
> 3. Hit by car. Unneutered pets are much more likely to escape randomly and get hit by cars. Even pets that normally do not run away from their owners.
Is there evidence of a causal relationship here?
Of course vandalism is a form of violence.
I haven't yet read into the details of this case, and I may end up siding with the protestors once I have. But I do not abide the corruption of language for whatever political ends.
> If anyone has better references on the frankly astounding technical accomplishment that the CRIS Passenger Reservation system, please share.
Huh? You've described a run-of-the-mill, moderate-scale reservation system. This is not "astounding" in any sense except, perhaps, the hyperbole.
> The gender pay gap is a statistic that requires some nuance to evaluate
If only nuance were present when politicians on the left make misleading or false statements like "women (are) paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men".
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/jun/21/barack-oba...
> Shouldn't choosing to raise a family account for the experience gap?
Edit: I think I misread your second paragraph. Choosing to raise a family likely does account for the existence of the experience gap, if that's what you mean; but raising a family isn't equivalent to on-the-job experience.
If Twitter's censorship really has no relevant effect beyond its platform, then why has there been such a push to get Twitter and others to deal better with Russian bots following 2016?
Are these people mistaken? Does what's allowed to appear on Twitter really have no effect on the broader society?
The only thing that terrifies me more than Trump is the number of my tech industry colleagues who seem to think we can and should abuse our power to shape public discourse.
"Affirmative action", in the common understanding of the term, refers to non-race-blind processes in admissions and so forth. If, while controlling for all other variables, a person of race A has a different chance of being admitted than a person of race B because of their race, then yes, we certainly are talking about a form of racism.
On the other hand, as you point out, one could design a race-blind system that gives a leg up to people who grew up in poverty, people whose parents were incarcerated on account of the war on drugs, etc. This system would disproportionately give a leg up to black students, so when looked at from an angle of averaged-out racial group dynamics it may "approximate exactly what affirmative action does."
However, crucially, on an _individual_ level such a system would not discriminate between otherwise similar applicants on the arbitrary basis of race. Unlike affirmative action, such an alternative system as you describe would not be racist, and that is no small distinction.
> Company that is flush with that much cash couldn't find new roles for the 'small number' of people that were impacted?
The third sentence in the article: "Google didn’t specify how many roles are being cut and said it was working with affected employees to find them new positions in the company."
"Democratically elected" is a really odd way to say "defied a referendum on term limits and rigged an election".