ecommercematt

When was this fact-based debating era?

"The author from Ukraine of all places probably wants soviet like discipline and work-ethic for USSR salaries? Yeah, ain't gonna happen comrade."

The restrictions on shipments of goods into and out of Gaza vary pretty regularly, which is the main reason I found that term to be an instance of editorializing rather than informing.

Since what can cross into and out of Gaza changes so frequently, is it only sometimes a complete blockade? When massive shipments are allowed in, would the blockade have exited its status as a "complete" blockade? Then what level of restriction needs to be met before it resumes its status as a "complete" blockade?

If you aren't aware of the varying policies, exceptions, and pretty regular massive shipments of goods allowed during the blockade, you should be able to find plenty of instances with minimal Googling.

Note that I'm not calling it a "mild blockade" or a "partial blockade" or anything like that and I might even call it a "restrictive blockade" or even "very restrictive blockade." I don't seek to minimize the blockade, just to accurately represent it.

While it might be "pretty useful to know," about the blockade, you weren't helpfully stating a fact that someone might not know in order to be "useful." Given the blockade's prominent role in the article (the word "blockade" is in the title and it occurs 3 other times throughout the article), you weren't informing anybody; you were editorializing. Why didn't you mention Egypt's role in the blockade in your comment, singling out Israel as the lone offender?

If someone were relying on your comment to learn about the situation as you seem to be suggesting was your intent, they would be under-informed about the major actors in the situation and perhaps misinformed about the nature and severity of the blockade. Your use of the term "complete" to describe the blockade ranges from subjective to incorrect, depending on one's perspective.

Is the conversation we're having ideal for HN? I don't think so, but I think it is the inevitable consequence of "talking about politics." Talking about politics is quite different than merely informing people of facts requisite for understanding a given situation, despite your attempts to conflate the two.

To understand why "talking about politics" is harmful on this site, let's review this excerpt from your post:

"if you are not allowed to mention Israel's complete blockade of the Gaza Strip"

Hacker News isn't a good place for me to point out my many disagreements with your analysis, but to illustrate my point, I'll point out that: 1) the blockade isn't "complete," 2) Egypt also shares a border with Gaza and enforces a blockade, and 3) that making a claim that you're "not allowed to mention Israel's ____" is either an instance of, or (very probably) merely resembles, bigoted, anti-Jewish narratives about Jewish control of speech, the press, etc. I assume it just bears resemblance to bigotry, but can you understand why to some people particularly sensitive to anti-Jewish prejudice, this would make them a little bit uneasy?

"Why are talking about politics so bad?"

It isn't bad to talk about politics, but based on my feedback, do you see why your comments above lead to off-topic discussions for Hacker News?

You know what really offends me, though? That damn auto-playing ad on the article!

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/500161965881188354 Desmond Tutu: My Plea to the People of Israel. http://bit.ly/XlQ5YZ

In the link, Desmond Tutu calls for a boycott of Israel.

Later that same day, he tweeted:

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/500300735481774082 When Desmond Tutu is on one side of an issue and Sean Hannity is on the other, how much more do you need to know?

Presumably, PG thinks nobody should buy bicycles made by this craftsman. PG, am I correct?

C: Assemby language is too low-level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Childhood_to_mid...

If somebody has some insight on this, and they'd be willing to discuss it in greater detail or at greater length than would be suitable in an HN post, please contact me (see my profile).

I wrote "This "article" is misleading. The video which this link-bait inaccurately describes states "they visited Steve Jobs just to meet him because he was a hero of theirs and they said to John Doerr after the meeting 'Why can't he be our CEO?'" (The section of the video pertaining to the CEO hiring starts around the 24 minute mark.) The video makes it seem as if that question was basically a joke and also that it wasn't ever directly posed to Steve Jobs. I resent being lied to by the puff piece, but it is interesting to think about how such an outcome would have changed things (bmelton's thoughts being an example)." when a slightly LESS misleading version of this submission was posted some months back.

I'm disappointed to see this has received 20 upvotes at HN. It has no citations, and it is obviously full of bunk.

The video makes it seem as if that question was basically a joke and also that it wasn't ever directly posed to Steve Jobs. I resent being lied to by the puff piece, but it is interesting to think about how such an outcome would have changed things (bmelton's thoughts being an example).

Also, you misspelled "Worcester" in the description of "The Towers" at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.