HN user
looters should not be shot, law should prevail
That is literally the law of the land. Read into castle doctrine and duty to retreat. Business owners have the legal right to defend their life on their property with deadly force if left no choice (i.e. a mob has surrounded you)
At any rate his tweet was ambiguous, he could have meant shooting naturally follows looting, not that he was ordering the guard to execute civilians.
If you think Trump suddenly decided he wanted to make a big deal of this and hasn't been working with Barr and GOP to draft legislation from day one (of Barr's tenure) you've not been paying attention.
You can continue to believe Trump is unpredictable when almost everything he does is signaled far in advance.
Where did I say they can't go against the President? I simply stated the reality of the situation and then my idea of why he'd do it.
They have survived so far paying SV salaries. The non-engineering positions are practically disposable but they make up a considerable amount of bloat at many companies. Now would be an ideal time to trim the fat.
Can't imagine why you're being downvoted I can't think of a single news outlet that doesn't do this.
I would hope the tanks roll in if they try to burn the city down. The politicians in SF/CA have made every attempt to disarm the public. What happens when the SFPD abandon their post and looters are going house to house?
And it's not so much a refusal to deal with politics as much as we are already dealing with it everywhere else. It's nice to have a refuge. Although I find it strange that thread was pruned as Section 230 is definitely related to tech.
It's clear Jack doesn't want to kowtow or maybe his ego is bruised but I just don't understand what he expects to come of this. The President has stacked the courts in his favor. He will get his way and twitter will take a massive hit financially.
My best guess is that Jack plans to move the company headquarters out of the US which would explain why he chose to allow remote work indefinitely. But can he get it past shareholders? The President had also stated he doesn't want foreign companies on the NYSE and no other market offers similar liquidity.
Why is this on HN? It's not remotely tech/culture. I don't want to be a jerk but please keep this stuff on reddit where it belongs.
I don't think anyone is using his service, including himself. This page on his personal website uses a google form.
Twitter has some automated method of determining whether a tweet is NSFW and it is very accurate to the point where I didn't even realize they allowed that content. They can figure out how to filter illegal content as well.
How often are people bootstrapping a social media site? That's not something you rollout with a tight budget. Most websites do not allow user-generated content. This won't have nearly as big of an effect on the sector as you think.
Whether they are paying people or writing automated systems to remove content they disagree with, these companies argued for this legal protection on the grounds of protecting free-speech, and now that they want to restrict it they don't deserve those same protections.
Sounds like you're referring to DMCA where as I was referring to heinous crimes like drug/sex/child trafficking. They do have protection right now in either case.
If companies want to allow user generated content they should be liable for moderating it. The legal protections that these companies have thrived on should be repealed. They don't seem to have trouble removing content they disagree with so illegal content shouldn't be any more difficult.
If companies are going to self-moderate their platforms then they should not receive any kind of legal protection from user-generated content. I wholly believe companies have every right to dictate what is on their platform but they cannot have it both ways. If you can afford to moderate content you disagree with, you can do so for illegal content as well.
If I own a store and someone injures themselves on the premises I am held liable for that. I did not force that person to enter the store but the benefits of having a store outweighed the risks. Why should internet companies receive special treatment? They should be 100% liable for what happens on their "premises" if they are going to take the risk of allowing user-generated content.
Godspeed to the men on board. And God bless the SpaceX team for bringing it all back home.
This goes back to the argument of first to market or best. I have yet to see a definitive answer.
Why does facebook need to do anything about this? People have been disagreeing with each other violently or otherwise for as long as humans have existed. Do they think they can do anything about this?
If all you're doing is creating an MVP do whatever is easiest. But yes ideally you would have two separate codebases and obviously it's dependent on your project how much tools can be shared between the projects.
It sounds like you didn't read my post. My complaint was that its lazy developing to just take your web app and put it on the desktop. I was not commenting on the merits of this tool.
Please, no. Your application belongs on the web. I can already tell when applications are written with middleware, cross-platform tools, electron, etc. because they always run like trash. They offer no benefit over a website and only open up your machine to new attack vectors. I know I'll catch flack for this, but we shouldn't lower the bar to entry here. Native app development is not significantly more difficult than web and it's drastically better for the end user.
You really don't need much land to get by. Alaskans who are self-sustainable usually have small greenhouses they only farm in during the summer months. In a place like California where you can grow things year round, a quarter acre plot would be plenty for a whole family. Thanks to marijuana farms, indoor hydroponics equipment can be had for cheap. If you have a space to setup, you can grow fresh vegetables indoor year round.
I can't speak for the Netherlands but in the US most publications are just glorified tabloids. Not enough people appreciate quality journalism to pay for it, at least not enough to cover the operational costs of our bloated news outlets. So they turn to publishing "anonymous sources", hearsay, and outright lies that will be quietly retracted because it pays more than the truth. Spreading FUD has always been the MO of the news, I won't be upset if all these companies go belly up. Make way for a new generation of grass roots journalism.
Unlikely that someone paying a million an acre would want to hunt for their meals. Alaska works because people are self-reliant but community bonds are incredibly strong. Beyond a certain population density, that type of community doesn't work.
Quarantine has accelerated forecasted job loss. Whether we return to baseline by next year, a lot of companies are going to take this opportunity to lean out without fear of backlash.
Many people actually survive on that one check. Alaskans are fiercely independent for the most part, and those living outside the main cities are typically self-sustainable. They own their land, hunt for their meat, grow their veggies, trade for what they don't have, and spend whatever money they do have on the essential tools to sustain that.
Same here but I really wish he wouldn't kowtow every time some wackjob group is screaming at him. He took a very moderate and reasonable stance on a lot of contentious topics during his campaign then rolled them back within a day of getting lit up by twitter trolls. I think he lost a large section of centrist voters by appearing spineless.
He took the best policies from the left and right, but also seemed obligated to tow party lines a lot of the time rather than offer up better alternatives. I wish he would have run third party, he could have taken a lot of moderate votes from President Trump. The democrats didn't stand a chance of winning this election, at the very least he would have sent a message to the next generation that there are other options.
Don't worry, the majority of people are like you. I forget the numbers but something like 10% of twitter accounts are making 99% of tweets; reading things online can skew your view of the world. You will only ever hear from the very vocal minorities because the rest of us just don't care.
This might come as a shock to you but most people do not care what the political opinions or behavior of a car manufacturer's CEO are. Likewise the internet does not at all reflect the views of your average person, and I would wager that despite Tesla fanatics being very aware of Musk and his eccentric behavior, most Tesla owners moving forward won't even know or care who the CEO is as they rollout to mass market. This won't make a dent in his customer base. Musk is beyond reproach at this point, his "fuck you" warchest is too big.
Let's be honest, that kid is a moron. Most people wouldn't have even noticed the ads as they are so ingrained in the internet these days. The average person I know still clicks on the first google result, without realizing it's an ad, and wonders why it's not the correct website.
I've no doubt he'll make it as a programmer but there was no moral quandary here and the money probably would have done him a lot of good.
From the moment the government decided to declare a state of emergency, multiple surveillance bills with support from both sides have been pushed. Rand Paul did well to point out the people like Lindsay Graham and Dianne Feinstein haven't wasted a second trying to expand government powers instead of helping Americans. The government is clearly out to get people, there is no question about it.