HN user

brycesbeard

78 karma
Posts0
Comments47
View on HN
No posts found.

I’ve been speaking with my girlfriends friends, about the paucity of eligible men in the SFBA. Most of them ask me to introduce them to a nice person. Looks aren’t as important, but having a decent job is. Maybe it’s the age, but I found simply being kind and knowing your target market (women who like kind guys, who are everywhere, and are often smoking hot) works.

Late 30s is a good time to date. I had the same issues as OP describes in my 20s, not in the Bay Area. It was all about how I subconsciously chose to approach things. I worked on myself, was genuine, and have had great success finding a mate up here.

(Not all that attentive, about 50 lbs overweight, fwiw)

This was my experience as a contractor for the Navy, years ago. We’ve had radar systems that can detect planes after a reflection on another plane, but the software is dogshit.

Someone once told me, it’s because generals and admirals can see hardware, and fell like they got value for their money. Software, not so much.

Perhaps it’s something innate in humans. Remember how Beats headphones used to add weights to feel more substantial?

Not everyone agrees that intention is relevant. For me, it’s important to help while minimizing harm and trying to respect the agency and wishes of the recipient, which the fighting analogy violates. that is a challenging balance in practice, but we are talking about ethics, where there is more grey than b&w.

I suppose you could argue that religion is harmful.. but even as an atheist, that’s a stretch for me to agree with.

Having Kids 7 years ago

little of any modern decisions is based on what humans have experienced, historically. We have evolved a set of core emotional firings that do not have much to do with how we live.

Why start/stop at the initial decision, when these issues go so much deeper.

What about this seems reasonable? The positive ROI could easily be overwhelmed by quality of life changes for current residents. Also not clear that this type of tech hq is great for a neighborhood.

How beneficial is this kind of a deal, compared with the other options of what could be done w the resources?

There is also an ick factor of negotiations like this, between private for profit enterprises and governments. It sounds a bit like publicly funded sports stadiums, which have been very popular yet financially terrible.

I assert it doesn’t affect the legitimacy of the site at all. Also, I don’t think selling cigarettes undermines a pharmacy.

I may place less importance on “brand coherency” and more on “value to myself” than others.

Can you talk a bit about how this felt? As an outsider, it seems like it would be conflicting. On one hand, people profiting off your work without asking. On the other, increasing the network effect increases the games value.

Disagree that it’s ridiculous, as the goal of a vegan is to not consume animal products. And by consuming, increase the production by pressing the “demand side” button.

For health reasons, like gluten, a perfect separation makes sense. But as long as people know this is what’s up, I think it’s okay. (And, specifically, they are not ridiculous for reusing it he same steel)

Many people plan poorly and have to sell collectibles quickly for immediate cash. I know people who buy and sell cars purchased from folks who need money quickly (matter of hours) and will get crazy deals simply because they have cash on hand on eg a Sunday evening.

These links are all from 2016 and reference the same leak from FB. Said leaks stressed that these ideas may never be implemented

here we are, 3 years later. It sounds to me like FB discusses the idea and never implemented it. I’m not sure we can fault a company for exploring contingency plans with China...

Wasn’t the server load for ssl something like 3-5%? That doesn’t strike me as much of a factor as the complexity involved, especially with the confusion added by eg Thawte hawking their enhanced validation product.

Electron 7.0 7 years ago

Electron is a crass and dishonest attempt at redefining portable and cross-platform to include a very narrow selection of platforms.

You don’t think the crass and dishonest part is a story that you’re telling yourself? To me, it’s an engineering trade off. There is no need to criticize what others have chosen, and afaict, no evidence to support this hyperbolic questioning of their intentions.

Electron 7.0 7 years ago

It’s clear that you aren’t their intended audience. Due to a choice you have made to not use a more common platform. Your responses sound like you’re upset; why? You made your choice. They made theirs. Accept the reality, accept the trade offs, or make changes.

Complaining about the decisions made by other people isn’t useful.