bigDinosaur

In this case all it required was to follow the link to their blog on their HN profile just FYI. Although your question was reasonable either way.

You expect people to start running at 5-6km/h which is about a fast walking pace? That seems unduly slow?

If having a 'good time' makes me a bad guy then I'm sorry to say but I'm okay with that. I, of course, don't actually agree that that's true.

There's plenty of evidence that it's tens of thousands, but it's absurd to even argue over those numbers when a government massacring any number of its own citizens is morally reprehensible (whether it's 5k or 50k). Iran has a long history of executing its own citizens en masse.

Iran has admitted outright to 6k deaths, by the way.

I simply don't believe that it generally produces graduates who 'cannot order food in a restaurant'. The phrases required for that are almost always simple. Perhaps you mean that the graduates do not necessarily know certain vocabulary (in the sense of not knowing how to precisely specify a 'rack of lamb' whatever) or the correct register/politeness level for every possibility?

Nothing with email can ever be an easy fix, although the idea is amusing. It is inherently the problem.

You dropped the second half of my sentence which pointed to a specific harm. You consequently argued against something which I didn't say. You are not arguing in good faith and this 'conversation' has clearly run its course as you are not capable of engaging the actual points someone is making.

Someone saying that someone shouldn't be able to promote specific harm x is not saying that the idea of 'promotion' of anything in general is necessarily bad, exactly in the same way that we restrict certain harmful things from being sold without being against the idea of selling things in general.

If you mean 'should network TV be allowed to use behavioural psychology to manipulate people into being couch potatoes' then the answer is yes, that should be regulated against.

Anyway, the way you talk about shorts reminds me of drug addicts who talk about how they can control their consumption. Some can. Many cannot but delude themselves. The way I see people interact with shorts/TikTok/reels is very much not restrained. They're optimised for addictive scrolling in the same way a slot machine is - the fact that some people can use a slot machine without becoming addicted is besides the point.

I'm genuinely curious how one can look at someone using an app like TikTok and conclude that's not addictive. It's optimised in every way to engage people in behaviours that look like outright addiction.

Anyway, sometimes 'panic' is justified. Sports betting has been a total disaster, for example.

Certain people/businesses deal with one-off things every day. Even for something truly one-off, if one tool is too slow it might still be the difference between being able to do it once or not at all.

Email?

I don't think your initial claim is well supported considering the size of domestic travel and entertainment sectors in most of the world (although I'll admit that the way people allocate non-work activities in many places may not lead to a relaxed life in the way, say, a Swiss person on a sabbatical has). Points 1 and 2 in this recent comment are different ones again, though and not ones I disagree with.

Domestic tourism is massive even in countries with terrible work culture like China, so your claim is not particularly strong. Either way, hobbies and holidays are certainly not unique to NA and Europe.

This article seems to hinge on a rhetorical flourish whereby the literal meaning of 'you are not your job' is substituted with a criticism of 'you are not what you do'. Well, of course it doesn't make sense and isn't true if you redefine it like that - the original aphorism is instead more literal: your identity should not be conflated with the identity of your employer. The substituted argument leads to some fascinating philosophy, but doesn't deal with the more literal fact that plenty of things you can do for value to the world are still negatives, either net negative for the world or to the individual. Conflating one's identity with an employer is the latter, since the employer and the employee almost always have different requirements for well-being (in the case of a corporation then of course the employer in that sense has no requirement for well-being at all).

All discussion of foreign affairs is the discussion of domestic affairs somewhere.

Describing Germany's loss in WW2 as 'affecting their foreign policy a little' represents a profound disconnect with reality, which is that WW2 fundamentally reshaped the entire world, cemented the US as a superpower, set up the USSR for its rise, split Germany in two (with major political effects to this day), ended European empires (UK, French), and ultimately brought about the EU. And those are just some of WW2's effects, which would have all gone completely different directions if Germany or Japan had won.

You really didn't feel Pentium 4 to Core 2 Duo was a 'game changer'?

To say this is simplifying is understating just how 'not even wrong' this is...

Can confirm - I go for the cheapest and smallest iPhones possible (e.g. 13 mini) and could not care less about >60Hz on my phone, although I care about it quite a lot for laptop or desktop displays. 17e will likely be my next upgrade (if I can bear to part with my 13 mini).

I didn't say the Shakers had a bad idea, it just was an idea that led to them removing themselves from further existence that was not genetic. Whether that was a good or bad decision is an entirely separate judgement call.

It doesn't have to be genetic to be 'self-removing'.

What happened to the Shakers?

Obviously the concept is different from the execution, and you provided an idea on execution (which anyone can do) which would need to be actually, you know, proved out to help with any kind of brand loyalty. Just doing random things that sound good is not a great strategy.

How is that not a line of principle? Principle doesn't mean where we'd all agree, nor does it mean what we'd deem acceptable, it just means there is a line somewhere - and mass surveillance or fully autonomous AI in the kill chain is a very clear principle.

Someone has not read a book even if they read the opening paragraph, so the solution is likely far simpler.

You can spin up any idea and claim it increases brand loyalty, but you have to have actual evidence that that either happens or actually matters in some way, and in this case it probably doesn't and isn't worth the expense once the scale exceeds >1 employee spending more than a few minutes a day. If you've got the data to prove otherwise so that you can actually make someone money, go ahead and sell people on the idea.

CORS has nothing to do with (dis)allowing 'mutating requests from random origins' on the server unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. The origin is a browser concept.

There's no actual good evidence for being a Mossad operative and the agenda of trying desperately to link him to Mossad so strongly is such a transparent agenda it's almost funny.

In the world of B2B software many of the 'hard problems in custom software development' have not been solved by human coders either - it can be an extremely grim market for anyone who cares about software quality. I'm completely unconvinced that on average a vibe-coded app is worse than the typical B2B slop.

All you've done is created a homonym for no good reason at all.

I would still expect ingress and egress costs to be significant - as well as storage for content that isn't culled. And while it was not 'meant to be profitable' my point is that it was profitable, apparently exclusively from revenue from the iOS app which I still find surprising that it would cover the Ankiweb costs.