brucelidl

I don't know how they are doing business wise, but Criminal Records in Little Five Points is a great record store in Atlanta. Was quite bustling the last time I was there, fwiw.

Wow, this is fascinating, my family is originally from Cumberland (actually Frostburg, but...). My mom was born and raised there, but left as soon as she could. Everybody did, and I don't think anyone from my family has been back there since my grandmother died decades ago.

It's really the eastern edge of Appalachia, but also very much a rust belt relic that depended on industries that are long, long gone (at least from that region). I think Kelly tires had a plant there when my mom was younger.

I've always wanted to go back and see it, just to compare it with my memories. It was in pretty steep decline already in the 70s and 80s, as even a kid could tell. I remember reading that they built a number of prisons nearby, also some across the border in Pennsylvania, but clearly that has not done enough to revitalize things.

"No one goes there any more, it's too crowded."

I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.

Well, since none of what you just wrote is true of my position, I'm not sure who precisely you are talking about.

Yeah, I can see what you are saying here, but there are some of us around here who support more housing. My reaction was based primarily in just how intense and varied the no growth sentiment is in this town. It honestly takes me aback at times. City council meetings can be surreal.

To be fair, UCD has built a ton of new student housing in that time frame, including the entire West Village complex. That may be what they are thinking of, even though I don't think that would be included in the town of Davis numbers.

10 year Davis resident here, with generally quite Yimby tendencies. I would support something like this, as we do absolutely need more (and if possible) cheaper housing in town for students. The university is the whole reason the town exists and it's just not healthy to make it prohibitive for students to live here, while at the same time force university staff to live in cheaper surrounding towns and then commute in and out, in my opinion.

But I do have to be realistic, the Nimby feelings in this town are VERY strong. Everybody who buys a house here seems to feel the town should stay exactly the way it was on the day after they arrived, without any recognition of how blinkered that is. The legal fight against something like this would be intense, to say the least. It would require a developer with great lawyers, very deep pockets and the thickest of skins.

The original name of Columbia University was King's College.

The headline is a quote that is specific to the discussion of her lawsuit against notorious Holocaust-denier David Irving. "Win" here means in countering denialism, not anti-Semitism generally. She means "history" in the sense of the actual facts of what happened, not some kind of progressive trend toward overcoming hate generally.

I appreciate the serious answer, and I suspect we don't disagree all that much.

I actively want a "systemic shift way from the attention economy" and believe that ad blocking is, somewhat bizarrely, the best practical tool to achieve that end. If there are some people who ad block for reasons I don't endorse, that is up to them.

I actually think ad blocking should be seen as, on balance, a powerfully good force for beneficial change. It's easy, it works, it makes the individual user experience better and has the ultimate effect of encouraging a better web generally. Doc Searls calls it the biggest boycott in history. He's not wrong.

Um, did you actually read the article? It's precisely about the ethics of ad blocking.

There is no "unspoken assumption." If content creators deserve renumeration for their work, there are plenty of systems they can use to generate it. Display advertising based on third party serving/tracking technology is proving to be a bad one. Ad blocking is merely the signal to let content creators know they should look for better options.

Yes, I do. I subscribe to a quite a few sites. Got anything else?

I don't understand what you are saying. Can I go to the bathroom during the commercial break while watching a football game? Do I have to scroll to the bottom of a page if I look at a headline?

No, of course I don't. If you demand a particular behavior from a reader, then enforce it. Otherwise, don't complain if it's ignored.

Put it behind a pay wall if you think it has so much economic value.

I doubt that anybody on HN is unfamiliar with the standard arguments for ad blocking. I find them persuasive, particularly the need to protect oneself from the security problems inherent in the third-party adtech system we have today.

I would, however, like to add one more. In the absence of government intervention to curb the worst aspects of the Internet's "surveillance capitalism" model, the moral imperative to ad block is even greater. If everyone ad blocked, it would devastate the economic value of our tracked data. Would my data mean anything to you if you couldn't use it to market to me? (Yes, I'm sure it would still have some value, but much, much less I believe)

Everybody should ad block as aggressively as they can.

Everyone reading the article knows the source of the fortune. The millions of people who have interacted with Sackler supported cultural institutions likely had zero idea of where the money came from, myself included.

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime." —Balzac (apocryphal)

The quote is referring to Cherie Blair, not Tony.