comesee

You're a superficial carrier of American culture. Sure you speak English and consume American media, but you have socialist values which are not American. This is the land of the free, not the land of government-enforced equity and insanely high marginal taxes for the rich. Let me guess, you're anti 2nd amendment? If there were more people who thought like you in America, the country would indeed collapse in on itself.

You use emscripten to convert nginx c code to wasm

Wow, no counter argument. Just shut down discussion. Okay

So how do you expect me to respond now that I've seen this cartoon? I genuinely have no ill will towards you or anyone, I'm simply trying to defend what I think is right in what I think is the most reasonable and civil way possible. Accusing someone of "sea lioning" is creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, if you're criticizing them for being reasonable and civil, how else should they defend themselves?

Is it possible to bring up ape behavioral studies without being accused of bad intentions? What do you propose is the best way to go about it?

It's well known that there is a lot of shared behavior among apes. We look for patterns in behavior across species to better understand that behavior. I never name-called or dehumanized anyone and to think I did is an unprovoked and uncharitible interpretation of my initial statement. My goal was to frame the behavior Jacques observed in an objective scientific context. My goal was never to "call people chimps." Do you think it's possible for someone to point out shared behavior between humans and other apes without malicious intentions?

It's an observed and documented behavioral pattern, it's not a presumption of motive. No reasonable interpretation of my original comment implies that one should assume all males will act like chimpanzees. Interesting and productive discussion can't be had without paying attention to the nuance of what is being discussed.

Sounds like an unfounded presumption of bad faith.

I know this library, my old 18.02 professor wrote it originally.

That means I'm probably on to something :)

Why isn't there an xprize for politically stabilizing these countries then? That would lead to vastly more efficient and convenient water sources.

I don't get it, why don't poor communities build piping from their nearby water sources? People were able to do this 2000 years ago. Why do they need to invent a reverse-entropy machine?

Criticizing the media with proper rationale is fair, but he's going a step further. He's strongly implying they are doing this for the money. No need for him to imply that or even assign any motive to why the media is wrong on this topic. It suffices for him to say they are wrong and to show how. He's putting forth a bad faith theory and this is also what Trump does. This sort of cynicism / assumption of poor motives towards the media is bad for society.

There's no evidence to suggest they intentionally write brown recluse stories because it sells more. It's just as likely the media also gets innocently wrapped up in the myth. I'm not sure how you're defending that quote.

He's promoting distrust in the media and this is dangerous for our democracy.

Directly from the article:

I repeatedly have seen the media in their "quest to seek out the truth" write completely speculative stories about the existence of the brown recluse in California. Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly good enough to sell news and therefore, a speculative story is fabricated based upon faulty assumptions.

He's strongly and cynically implying that the media doesn't sincerely seek the truth and runs stories based on whether the story sells. Promoting distruse in the media like this is dangerous for our society, we've see what happens when Trump does it.

Thanks Matt, very appreciated. On the other hand I somewhat feel like if I had put forth my opinion on why I was excited, I would have been even more downvoted. I suppose no comment at all is really what they want.

HN is a weird place, so weird I was downvoted for being excited about the future.

I love how fast things are changing. Excited to see where things go

I've been following wasmjit quite closely and they are implementing a PWSIX interface for WebAssembly.

By PR he means advertising. This article functions as advertising for Sharia banks.

> CoC assumes contributions are primarily due to the conduct of the community and not the intellect/interest of the contributor

No.

Yes. If that weren't the case there would be no need for a CoC. Kroah-Hartman's justification for the CoC is the longevity of the project, but the longevity of the project is not affected in any significant way by the conduct of its contributors. Evidence of that is the current success of Linux, which had no CoC for 20 years. Adding the CoC condition will have no noticeable positive effect on the longevity of the project: Linux isn't going anywhere, CoC notwithstanding.

> The quality of a community isn't primarily measured by its conduct but rather its accomplishments

Measuring the two is a possibility. That you don't, yourself, include the conduct of a community in your measure of its quality is your choice and yours only.

It's not my choice, it's the truth. Community conduct is not a requirement for a successful project but accomplishments are. Never have seen a project with good conduct but no accomplishments succeed, but I've seen many projects with bad conduct and many accomplishments succeed.

> I'm curious as to what led to this broadly wrong evaluation of the situation. What lead you to believe that?

You're the one who is wrong, as shown in my trivial counter examples. Simple logic and evidence are the tools I use to evaluate situations accurately.

Who wrote this article?

What's the practical use of a high star count?

I'm touchy about the cancer thing because I had my leg amputated and went through chemo for a year.

You can only develop for iPhone on macOS, and you don't always want to buy Mac hardware just for that.

The coffee shop being able to know all the domains you're visiting without your consent is already bad enough. I don't think they need to draw out a specific example. If the idea of the coffee shop knowing all the websites we visit is bad, we'll come up with our own examples, and that's something everyone can do. Almost no one researches cancer online.

Yeah not sure why I'm being downvoted. Imagine if the example was HIV.org or ebola.org, totally doesn't seem necessary.

As a cancer survivor, using the example of someone spying on your cancer.org visit as a motivation for encrypted SNI seems a bit excessive and insensitive. There are definitely more neutral ways of motivating eSNI than invoking the fear of a stranger finding out you or a loved one has cancer. Shame on Mozilla.

It's a joke

It's a joke, you're taking it way too seriously

Great honest accurate article. NPC meme is the funniest thing since Ugandan knuckles