Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | vanderreeah's comments login

I don't know what Gab is, or what its typical content is like, though I'm getting an idea from the replies to this tweet. But the principle of free speech has nothing to do with the right of a company to use Paypal's services. It's to do with the right of individuals to say what they like without government incarcerating or otherwise harming them or their ability to speak.


If an entity stifles speech that entity is against Free Speech.


Wrong - Keynes believed the exact opposite. Perhaps his most famous opinion is that the gold standard was "a barbarous relic".


I don't know if I can prove you wrong, but in my opinion your example of Karl Marx's 200th birthday is misjudged. As far as I know he neither killed nor ordered to be killed anyone. He is no more responsible for people (I assume you have Stalin in mind) twisting his thought than is anyone else. To follow that logic to its conclusion you would also need to express outrage at Christmas, or at the depiction of Jesus on the billboards of churches, because of the deaths occasioned by the Crusades.


Fair point -- the Marx remark is a little unfair.


The AfD are far more frightening a right-wing group, and have far more power, than e.g. UKIP in Britain. I believe that because Germans refuse to see the Holocaust as anything other than a singular event they are now at risk of repeating it all over again. Their inability to relativise it (if that can be taken to mean to put it in a historical continuum in which other events of comparable atrocity are committed) means it's snugly in the past. I think this leads to a false sense of security.


Pedantic notice: an utter dearth of counterproductive features would seem to be a good thing rather than a problem.


I was confused by that, too. I have a problem with the word ‘dearth’ in that I can often not remember whether it means an abundance or scarcity. So I looked it up, and found that it means scarcity. Perhaps GP makes the same mistake I do and misused dearth to mean abundance?


Yes, it means scarcity and the GP used it to mean abundance.

My mnemonic is that "dearth" looks like "death".


I suspect they meant more like "profusion."


As they say - less is more.


As another systems engineer, I'd much rather have clearly delineated features and how to interconnect them, rather than a cornucopia of disparate and badly documented "features".

I'm thinking of the class of "Does:X, Y, Z" but Z requires unstated dependency of A and C, and C requires you to have a specific database organization type that was asked at the initialization of the system. And there would be no hint that you had to choose the DB type, and how that would have ramifications 10 steps down the line.

Going back, what I'd rather have is more in line with the Unix philosophy. Do something and do it well. Let me connect somethings to other somethings. But Gitlab is a cathedral, and disorganized at that.


I think you're missing the point as well; "dearth" is a lack of. A lack of counter-productive features is a good thing.


I think you've misunderstood who is responding to who. A "dearth of somewhat counterproductive features" is being described as a bad thing in the OP, using an incorrect/nonexistent definition of "dearth" as "there are too many somewhat counterproductive features".


As someone who's just entered the employment market after being a freelancer for a while, I have no idea how people who already have jobs can physically participate in the lengthy interview processes most jobs require these days. Ok they can take sick days, but if you're a bad liar or have an overactive conscience that's not ideal.

I totally understand the value of coding challenges, but I've been endlessly surprised at companies that expect me to expend more than 4 hours of my life interviewing for a chance at a job that will be paying maximum 50k. These are small companies, hardly the big 4. It's really an imposition.


The vast, vast majority of people in the world have to work most of the best hours of the day in order to pay for shelter from the weather and food for their family. In return they get the dubious privilege of allowing their brain to decompress in front of corporate-manufactured garbage on television.

Although we are not currently in a World War or its aftermath, and therefore our lives could reasonably be said to be better than in, say, 1917, I think this is taking a remarkably short view. There's a solid argument to be had that the life of an average human (well, admittedly a man) in the 17th century was immeasurably richer than the life of an average man in the late 20th / early 21st century, and that this downturn is because of the Enlightenment Pinker worships. Sure, life was shorter, but it's at least arguable that the quantification of life ushered in by the Enlightenment is responsible for the impoverishment of quality as a measure.


I do not believe that is a solid argument at all.

A man in the 17th century would likely have to bury at least one of his children because of disease. The man himself might succumb early to painful illness or infection. If he needed to travel for business he would be away from his family for months. If he lived on a farm (as many did) his days would be filled with hard labor and his standard of living would be much lower.

To say nothing of men of color, or gay men, or women, or men who were not landed gentry.

For many, many people, the 17th century was not a good time.


Wow, apart from the book, this is something I am thinking about a lot. Does the book give any further thought on this?


Please do not do this. Here is my reasoning:

You reasonably would want, for your 10k, to work at / learn from a respectable, successful company. But my guess is that 10k for any such company would not represent a huge amount of money, and they'd be unlikely to take you up on your offer.

On the other hand, there will be plenty of less respectable, less successful companies who would bite your hand off. But from your point of view this would not be a good return on investment.

Of course there will be exceptions, but in general I'd be suspicious of any company who would take your 10k. And since 10k is a large amount of money (to me at least!) I'd personally not want to gamble on finding one of the exceptions.

There is other advice in this thread on what to do instead - I'd think more along those lines. Just my 2c.


Why do you think that the behaviour of corporations is a matter of belief? You "refuse to believe" that they want to "get more money", but profit is the raison d'etre of corporations. It's why they exist. Increasing profit is therefore the prime goal. Your refusing to believe it, in the face of the evidence of history, business logic, and political science, is analogous to the blind faith of flat-earthers.


And to think that the employees have any say in the policies is also hopelessly naive.


Forgive my total ignorance of bitcoin but - why can't you sell 1 Bitcoin for $7000?


You can, it's confusing but there is Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, and soon to be another one Bitcoin Segwit2x or some such.

Each of these other "versions" of bitcoin were created by a fork. As far as I know, when a fork happens you get an equal number of "new coin" as you have original coin. Seemingly creating value out of nothing.


Ah I missed the different name. Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of comments I've seen before where people say that if you have 100 bitcoins you'll have a hard time converting them to (e.g.) $700k cash.


You would.

If you put a sell order at 7,000 with a volume of 100, it would (likely) cause a flash crash

You can see flash crashes all the time when someone offloads a bunch of coins without balancing across exchanges.

Plus, you would have to find quite a few people that wanted to buy coins @ 7,000 and finding them before your order causes a flashcrash isn't likely.


My understanding is that most exchanges won't allow you to move more than $10k/day or so out of your account. So, if you use three separate exchanges, it might take you a month to liquidate the entire stake.


Bitcoin Cash is a different, suggestively named currency (it’s not Bitcoin) that was bootstrapped by copying Bitcoin’s blockchain.


Bitcoin Cash was born out of necessity to save Bitcoin from disaster when it was hijacked by corporate interests (funded by AXA/Mastercard).

Both sides of the SegWit fork (SegWit1X vs. 2X) ~Nov. 16) are intentionally crippling transaction speeds/costs to move transactions off the blockchain and into the pockets of said corporate interests.

The true spirit and potential of Bitcoin lives on through Bitcoin Cash.


That could be entirely true (and I believe there are several alts that are technically superior to BTC), however if a friend asks me for Bitcoin, I am not going to tell him to install a BCH wallet, send him BCH, and tell him not to worry about it because it's Bitcoin in spirit and it's going to be great.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: