codeup

Fox News? Here's the original source: http://allthingsd.com/20111023/exclusive-siri-co-founder-kit...

I don't think the give-him-some-of-his-own reaction shows "how weak the defense is for this side of the argument".

You may be taking the reaction literally, but it likely just means this: If we mock this politician by threatening to apply his policy to himself, it may begin to dawn on his supporters that he is wrong.

So folks are just making fun of him, and rightly so. I just think that this particular joke may backfire (see my other comment).

Of course this would be an obvious demand and ironic. But I suggest one should only insist that he retreats from his policy aims: accept failure and/or step down.

Asking for his site to be taken down in accordance with his own misguided policy could give undue legitimacy to this policy.

The apologetic posts by Facebook engineers give deep insights.

Of course they can argue well on what are, for average users, technical details. On that level, it is possible to get entangled in endless discussions.

The real problem is that these posters seem to totally lack (or ignore) an understanding of the bigger picture of what they are contributing to.

"truly feels like important and worthwhile work"

Would you please care explaining why?

Ars Technica criticizing RSS while advertising Twitter? With respect to the point of the article, that's a false dichotomy.

Other than that, RSS is universal and decentralized whereas Twitter is a vain, contained and centralized environment.

The way this is being debated here is quite emotional and superficial, resembling the discussion on Facebook.

As far as I see, there was an open unprotected commons, and some passer-by just took everything to do with it what he wants. You may rightly find this a sad thing, but you shouldn't be too surprised. This is a well known dilemma, there are enough studies dealing with this. There's a reason why copyleft licenses establish a commons protected by copyright law.

Jonathan doesn't even discuss what Sam made of the experiment, but just hands him to the Facebook mob.

There appears to be an obsession with leaders and leadership in American corporate/political culture. I would like to understand it better. Can someone explain it to me?

First this: "advertising is, ultimately, a form of discovery, a way of connecting people who want or need something with those that supply it."

Then this: "How exactly is it bad to connect people with things they want and need?"

And this: "How anyone can have a moral objection to that baffles me."

This is misleading. There may be people who object to advertising in principle, but even if you don't, if you are seriously trying to think about "moral objections", you need to at least consider what is being advertised and how it is being advertised. Instead, your comment is an example of how advertising advertises itself.

Edit: clarified for coherence

This might get voted up, but other than that I don't see the purpose of this Tell HN at this point.

I doubt you know enough about the different sides of the fairly complex story to come up with definitive lessons learned at this point.

How is he the one at fault here?

I agree with most of your comment.

What I meant isn't that this is funny but ironic because Emacs is the FSF/GPL flagship. That said, I fully understand that RMS is taking this seriously because he wants to sort this out. Maybe he'll make a joke about this one day if it turns out to be a harmless oversight.

"We have made a very bad mistake."

While I agree with this conclusion and that it needs to be fixed: Wouldn't the irony in the mistake have been a good opportunity to show some sense of humor?

We've had the initial blogpost and Brian Chesky's response on Techcrunch. I would love to read what Airbnb CEOs have to say about the second blog post.

I think they should take credible steps as soon as possible to improve the author's situation. While they're at it, an explanation of how such incidents can be stopped from happening again would also be good.

If trust is so important for their business model, they have to demonstrate that Airbnb is trustworthy.

"Save your friends from outdated email"

Google has set up a dedicated website to help push people towards using their email service.

That's just one side of the medal. The other is that Google wants people to stop using their current email provider and move to them.

"Save your friends from YOUNAMEIT"

Maybe we'll also see more sites that help you save your friends from continuing to use Gmail, Facebook, Skype,...

There's a comment on the page that says "Wow ! org-mode for eclipse !". Not quite, but it would be great if .org files were supported by this todo editor or some other xtext based editor in the future.

Someone has to say it: This Language Log post is taking the BBC article and itself way too seriously.

That was my first thought, too.

The article lost me at "Waiting for a Google Plus invite?"

I'm not waiting for an invite and don't plan to use Google Plus. Won't use Facebook either. It's not like everybody who wasn't on FB is now jumping on the G+ bandwagon.

I find it quite annoying that so many people equate Mac vs. PC with Mac vs. Windows.

Macs are shipped with Mac OS but they're personal computers and other PCs can run operating systems other than Windows.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

And how easy is it to register a company?

"I'm in a poli-sci department with a bunch of continental political theorists."

Since when is this some kind of feature for quality or authority?

You could have found other examples than supporters of eugenics and nazi sympathizers to argue that "genius is rarely universal".

Instead you make hair-raising comparisons and close by writing: "I don't think Jason Fried, DHH, and co. are monsters, but".

This is a low form of an ad-hominem attack.

This is not linkbait.

This post by 37signals is criticizing the way market capitalization is often determined. Facebook's current valuation is just an extreme example.

Your choice to ignore the argument doesn't mean there is none.

Your comment supports the argument of the post.

Email is universal, but the message of this infographic is that the history of email was limited to the USA and England.

The content of this post doesn't live up to the title ("The Economics of Trust: Dr. Elliot Jaffe"). TL;DR: "Large companies are the safest place to store your data. They have an economic incentive to maintain your privacy."

Unconvincing.

The first reactions to Fukushima on HN and the downvotes of your inconvenient comment show the massive pro-nuclear bias of many users here.

I agree, but it's interesting that Google is doing so much more than just search today and they're not inviting the same response. Is it because the main search service has stayed the same without suffering from feature bloat?