hbags
No way. Meritt clearly attempted to shame her for writing about something that, for whatever reason, she didn't confront immediately.
He's a censor. He's shaming her for protesting outside his designated free-speech zone. Fuck him.
He's an asshole and a bully. If a victim doesn't protest withim his designated free-speech zone he doesn't want them to protest at all.
I just want anybody who sees his spew to know that his opinion is not the only one. I want any human who is harassed to know that if they share their story after the fact, that's good.
And they shouldn't worry about the fact that some utterly worthless assholes like Meritt will try to shame them for speaking out. They shouldn't be ashamed if they were too afraid, too shy, or too confused to respond in the moment.
It is GOOD that we share these stories. It is GOOD that we move towards a world where these things happen less often.
And the utterly worthless assholes like Meritt who want to shame people for sharing their stories... they might be well represented in HN, but they're a minority of normal humans.
And I'd like other potential Meritt's to realize how utterly disgusting it is that he tried to shame the victim into silence.
He tried to shame her and degrade her for having shared her story instead of doing something else.
He's an asshole. Fuck him.
It's despicable and downright fucking evil that you basically accuse her of sharing her story solely because she wants attention.
The worst part of your god-awful post is that it's currently pinned to the top of this board.
The fact that your disgusting, insensitive post is at the top is why women don't work in tech. They don't want to have to deal with assholes like you who have nothing better to do than say "she should do X instead of sharing her story", or whatever else you want to do to silence her, and shame her for sharing her story.
She is brave for doing anything, because she knew the world is full of assholes like you: cowardly bigots who will criticize ANY action she takes.
I'm sorry she had a problem. And I'm more sorry that HN has degraded to the point where a cowardly attack from a piece of shit like you is pinned to the top.
You haven't experienced the problems personally, and you probably haven't even seen them locally. But they're real.
For example, the famous video of Guy Kawasaki speaking about the Art of the Start was filmed at TiECon, which is run by The Indus Entrepreneurs.
source: http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/10/23/how-d...
I was trying to find a comment on HN where one of the dropbox employees references their datacenter, but my hnsearch-fu wasn't up to par.
As a fairly heavy ($x00,000/month) user of AWS, this is the funnniest and most-misguided thing I've read in a long time. AWS is horrible. It's extraordinarily bad, with all sorts of insanely complex failure modes to account for. There are some reasons to consider using it, but reliability is most definitely NOT amongst them.
Sorry Ivan, but voluntarily agreeing to access encrypted content is not comparable to slavery.
Absolutely. AngelList is all about institutional brands, and that's kind of sad. Teams are summarized by where they studied and worked, not what they accomplished, or what people think of them.
It always struck me as a lazy 'old boys club' method of filtering people and ideas.
Since these regulations occur at a local level, some of the rules are more effective than others, and some of them are straight-up corrupt. But the common case is not government creating monopolies, but rather government restraining them by regulating them.
In this case, I suggest you model rural America's density, and the cost to lay down a wire, or fiber, or whatever in a town, along with all the needed infrastructure.
Then I suggest you model the financial returns of that investment under conditions where there are multiple players.
If you do this well, you'll find that as you add competition, you add marketing cost, and you're also forced to amortize the fixed infrastructure costs over smaller and smaller numbers of consumers. And you'll also find that whoever was first to market in that area has a dominant position from a game theoretical perspective, and can make moves that would make it essentially impossible for any competitor to enter the marketplace profitably.
Natural monopolies aren't made-up things.
All people and institutions that have power sometimes abuse the power. Sometimes the abuse is knowing, sometimes it's accidental.
This is not terribly interesting.
You're taking what he said and swinging it so fully in the opposite direction it makes you look as crazy as him.
In my defense, I wasn't commanding the HN audience to place 100% of the blame on one party or another. I was just illustrating how insanely idiotic it was for OP to command us to absolve the corporations of their sins, and instead place 100% of the blame on the government.
And government does nothing but bad.
Swear on your stack of Ayn Rand books that the world would be better if we had more corporations, because they are perfectly ethical and never screw anybody over.
Yes, that's right. Never blame the con artists^W^Wcorporations who didn't do what they promised. Instead blame the government for trusting them.
The answer to her headline question appears to deviate from Betteridge's law, in that she concludes that some of the initiatives help women.
That said, I find it morally repugnant that 001sky seems to want to quash the right of either to engage in public speech, simply because said speech calls some entrepreneur's credentials into question. It's fine for any person (be they a research-oriented journalist or a bloviating pundit) to raise these sorts of questions, even if I think their position is weak and a tad ridiculous.
If you, as an entrepreneur, are too weak to handle public scrutiny (including scrutiny from people who are quite unlike yourself), then you should find another line of work.
They do not want you to do this. What your friend did is considered to be a form of return fraud and abuse. The industry term for it is 'wardrobing' or 'renting'.
It's a big enough problem that there is a company, http://www.theretailequation.com, that helps large firms blacklist people like your friend, though these defenses are fairly recent.
Returns require a receipt.
Not always.
Under a Libertarian regime, the whole thing would've been simpler, as no theory of justice or societal good would've been involved. It would've simply been JSTOR and MIT extracting whatever revenge they'd considered.
Beyond that, I found their choice of reference level of traffic oddly low given the stated ambitions of most serious BTC proponents.
Perhaps we can ask each other some questions:
My first question: BTC is designed with very limited bandwidth for transactions (right now it can only do 7 transactions per second). Is there an actual solution in place to deal with this? All I ever see is hand-waving about how the limits could be raised or eliminated, though that appears that it would create a problem with block chain size and bandwidth.
Is there a proposal someplace that actually addresses BTC's current lack of capacity that doesn't just create a rather massive bandwidth and storage problem?
My respect for people naturally declines when they've gone out of their way to deceive me. This happens regardless of whether or not I agree with the goal of their deception.
The Bible doesn't say 'Thou shalt only lie if it helps you further your personal agenda', it says 'Thou shalt not lie.'
There are some very reasonable arguments that guns destroy more liberty than they create, and thus it is liberal to be against tools that make violence so easily accessible.