jonemi

That's a much better set of photos. It also confirms he was content with a two-car garage.

It also stands in contrast to the other celebrities and business leaders featured on that site. If they had a ranking ordered by size/value ascending, I wonder what number he would be. I still suspect it'd be near the top.

For reference, this is the house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#/media/File:Dun...

I think that’s the point. Who are examples of obviously bad faith actors who _everyone_ would agree are bad faith?

Why doesn't CTRL+Backspace delete a word when editing a cell?

I'd be interested in reading more about this study. Are you able to find a link to it?

Sometimes I use https://hn.algolia.com/ for search.

You will hate Utah. Please don't come. Too many mountains. And we're full.

I think you mean he complains about anti-vaccine rhetoric? Because he's very pro-vaccine: https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Anntaleb%20vaccine

Your preferences to not hear about something aside, you can have civilized discussion about myriad controversial figures historical and contemporary—Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Putin, Manson, Bundy, Judas, and Kanye—why not Trump?

It doesn't need to devolve into contention. We don't flag COVID, Apple, or Rust articles because they tend to devolve into contention.

MD means Doctor of Medicine, i.e., they completed medical school. Dr. Fauci is a Doctor of Medicine in that he completed medical school and received his MD.

After medical school, doctors will enter a residency program for a specialty, but they are still MDs (DOs are equivalent). Their post-graduate training (residency and fellowship) varies but they are still MDs. MDs who specialize in infectious disease or epidemiology are still MDs. MDs who specialize in family medicine are still MDs.

You are falsely inferring MD means GP (general practitioner) which it may or may not. And you are further falsely inferring that a GP cannot have expertise in virology and immunology, which they likely don't, but they may. If you were to conclude a GP does not have CREDENTIALS to speak authoritatively about virology and immunology, I'd accept that assertion.

Yep, she can write about whatever she wants. Some people like it, I thought it was unhelpful. I wish it were something else and you're glad it isn't. Cool.

I mostly wanted to say I can relate AND didn't like it, responding to the parent.

I think it's negative because I think it focuses on the negative. It's just my opinion and my opinion can be like the author's—my interpretation of something based on my experiences. And it certainly doesn't have to advance the conversation or be about how "she got here", but I wish it would have because I think that would've been more useful. I'm OK if we disagree.

I was primarily responding to the parent who intimated those irritated by it can't relate. I was irritated and CAN relate. That was my primary point.

I CAN relate because I grew up poor, have a GED, have student loans because my parents didn't pay for my education, live in a poorer area than my coworkers, have a really old phone, worried about bothering potential mentors, don't fit in at the gym, relish bonuses, overeat free food because it's free (pre-covid), talk to janitors, was paid less than colleagues, etc. and yet I still find her sentiment negative, classist, self-victimizing, and unhelpful.

In my opinion, this comes off as shaming privileged people for their privilege. She could probably say a lot about the hard work and lucky breaks she's had that have helped her advance in spite of her challenges, but instead she focuses exclusively on her disadvantages.

I attribute most of my social mobility to a ton of lucky breaks. Some people aren't as fortunate, and there's a lot to be said about that, but I don't think this article advances that conversation.

This is the most valuable feature for me. I love how lightweight and responsive it feels.

The article made the distinction between empirical "can" you censor and normative "should". His point is that censorship or cancelling isn't effective.

For those who think the parent comment was conflating extreme right and average right, I just want to add some clarification as to why deplatforming still affects large swathes of the population and not just extreme segments.

I’m a strong social and fiscal conservative who never voted for nor liked Trump. I’m religious and that informs my opinions on a lot of social issues. I would be in strange company on Parler, but this still bothers me.

My family are all strong Trump supporters to the point that leaves me shaking my head. Working in technology, I also have a lot of progressive friends and coworkers.

As a racial minority, I think I can say this. There’s a real analogue to the general sentiment that LGBT, POC, or female Americans experience and worry about social or professional consequences to voicing their experiences and opinions and the general sentiment conservatives experience from voicing theirs.

Before you castigate me and say it’s false equivalence, take the good advice of the anti-racism movement and “just listen” to why I feel that way.

This is my personal experience as a POC and as a religious conservative working in tech. Even as a more moderate conservative (e.g., I believe climate change is anthropogenic and the state needs to correct for market failures), I genuinely feel like my voice is being suppressed—that is, my opinions are becoming less tolerable by the mainstream. For example, I have very traditional views about LGBT issues and abortion, but those views are becoming labeled as violent (I don’t believe in any kind of violence, BTW, but just believing that doesn’t accord with mainstream beliefs is considered hurtful and violent), in spite of how I support legislation and personally demonstrate fairness and tolerance for my LGBT friends and am sympathetic to women’s health issues.

There are a lot of people on the right who would do well to listen to BLM and those who feel like their voices are being suppressed. There are a lot of people on the left who would do well to listen to conservatives who feel like their voices are being suppressed. Let’s just have more humility about these things. If you feel like you’re in a morally/intellectually/factually superior position, quit treating people who aren’t as enlightened as the enemy. Treat them with some decency and compassion and listen so you might persuade them instead of berating them about their wrongness.

I think it’s hubris to be so confident in our own positions as to preclude accepting people’s lived experiences (like mine) as meaningful anecdata.

As I continue to feel the shift to fewer and fewer outlets for my voice, I genuinely worry. I blame the extremists on the right, absolutely, but I also blame extremists on the left. At the core I blame the tendency to not listen.

When it got to the point when I needed a script, I just preferred Python. I can understand how some might prefer jq and a shell script, I just realized it wasn't worth it for my particular needs.

I used to be a regular user of jq, but I was never parsing very large JSON. I now do what I used to do with jq in my browser's developer tools console. Map and filter are far more familiar than jq's syntax where I found myself referring to the documentation most of the time.

I'm sure other people have use cases where the browser wouldn't meet their needs, but for me, I find jq unnecessary.

How are differences in identity and values not the objective of diversity?

[edit] First comment on HN and thought I should add more context so it doesn’t sound like a rhetorical question. I’m asking because one of the values you refer to in the article is diversity and how it can be a uniting value among those who espouse it. I understand that to mean valuing differences among people, so I’m asking sincerely if the fact that we coexist with people of all varieties of identities and values fulfills one of the objectives of diversity. If I’m misunderstanding something, happy to be corrected.