herbig

Yes. This exactly.

I'm not outraged, just surprised that people would so heartily upvote such a comment.

People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.

If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.

The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad.

The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard and dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle.

A couple of people hating on this. Despite the obvious fact that you can in fact get lost on a trail, the progress of autonomous rescue drones doesn't just end at following trails.

Once they're able to detect trails and follow them looking for people, the next step would be detecting signs of where they might have wandered off trail, or (especially in snowy conditions) detecting and following where they have started their own trail.

Except that in your example, the trees are influencing by environmental factors throughout their life, whereas the first sentence of this article says it's environmental factors in utero that influences fingerprints.

Most people here know about Signal, but if you don't:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcri...

Open source, easier to use, much better UI.

It's been two hours this has been posted and no one has yet self congratulatingly posted a wikipedia link to a certain law about title's ending in question marks. I'm proud of you guys.

It's not the difficulty of the lock but just the fact that it's there as a deterrent. If someone really wants to get into your home they'd break a window or kick down the door. The lock is mostly for crimes of opportunity and personal reassurance.

Ha, that's pretty awesome. Still going strong.

My main issue with the article is that despite only using pseudonyms, the author easily revealed the real life name of one of the individuals by quoting her Twitter account.

Maybe the author doesn't understand technology, but this shouldn't have slipped by editing. Which really leads me to believe there was none.

Really interesting, but a lot of grammar errors and runwithfire gets doxxed by the author within the article. Don't papers have editors anymore?

No no. My main concern is authors gaming HN to promote terrible content.

I find it to be garbage self promotion when an article with little and/or poor content is submitted by the author and immediately gets 10+ upvotes without any comments, sending it straight to the front page.

In this case, straight to the front page despite many negative comments about the content.

If the article is not an Amazon link farm, it sure as hell reads exactly like one. So much so that my assumption is that the author intended to add in referral codes at a later date when reaching peak audience.

Ha, yeah. Lots and lots of Amazon products, with referral codes.

Garbage self promotion submitted by the author himself.

That's assuming a technological civilization's natural progression is towards space travel, which may or may not be true. The Aztecs were way "behind" when explorers first discovered them, but were doing pretty fine.

Author writes a whole article extrapolating uninformed claims from a single wikipedia article. No sources listed likely because it would be too obvious that no real research was done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_selfie-related_injurie...

Priceonomics is usually higher quality than this. This feels more like a quick college term paper.

We for sure don't feed kids corn syrup and dress them ridiculously because their senses are still developing.

Would clothes fall off a Barbie doll if you flipped it upside down? Do they fall off of Ken? I find that argument highly questionable.

What part of India are you from? Rural or urban? The article seems to be focused on women in rural communities.

Also, I don't think India is unique in negative coverage. With a newspaper as big as the NYT you're bound to find something negative, but every country gets primarily negative coverage, including the U.S. That's the news that sells.

"Amazon doesn't disclose Prime membership numbers"

"The numbers were based on surveys of 500 U.S. residents who made a purchase at Amazon.com in the period from October-December 2015"

Lot of bold claims here. Just a few ways off the top of my head for why this estimate is ridiculous:

- People who use the Internet are more likely to be Prime members. We have elderly people here.

- People who've made a purchase on Amazon are more likely to report being prime members.

- People who made a purchase during the holidays are far more likely to be Prime members (I was a Prime member this holiday season, because I finally cashed in my free month and cancelled).

- 500 people is far too low a number to extrapolate such a bold claim about Americans.

- I'd even argue that people who fill out surveys may be more likely to be Prime members.

In short, Consumer Intelligence Research Partners sounds like a joke.

It's cute but it's speculative fiction that hasn't remotely come to pass. I don't get why anyone is saying this is spot on. People love good dystopian nonsense.

No real content about code review at Genius.

Self promotion posted by the Genius cofounder.

"Enjoy isn’t the word. But I could feel a lot of toxins were being washed out."

This reminded me of a Reddit thread today about "Which persistent misconception/myth annoys you the most?" where one of the top comments was "Removing toxins from the body". Whether he's using the term metaphorically or not, it still sounds ridiculous to me.

His whole story sounds ridiculous. I fully get wanting to connect more with nature. Living off the grid, spending more time away from technology, that all really resonates with me.

But living on all fours as an animal in a way that the human body wasn't meant to experience or endure? The guy is either full of shit or insane in a way that isn't even useful to discuss.

The article ends with a link to his book, which is sold on The Guardian bookshop.

Yeah I just Googled those and they're all available.

Denying passwords would just lead to adding 1 to the end and calling it a day. We shouldn't really put any limitations on passwords users use.

I'm not sure beating users with a confusing UI element until it's anachronistic is a good strategy.

He was a stage actor. His career didn't start with film.

This article makes it seem like he was struggling to be a success long after he should have quit. They just have a completely wrong definition of success.

It's ridiculous that this is the top comment.

He can say "previously a professional Magic: the Gathering player" but really he means on hiatus. No one ever quits.

Edit:

This made me curious as to what it was like within the GP/PTQ/SCG scene for him. From my experience, almost no one in that scene would know anything about Aaron.

Religious ideologies have never answered these questions either.

Just because we have not yet answered these questions in a scientific manner does not mean that we cannot. But religion, being absolutist, cannot evolve in a way that scientific understanding can. A religion that evolves is a religion that was false to begin with.

Suicide and depression are largely a result of over diagnosis, which is to be expected when incentives align that way in a capitalist system.

The world is much, much more complex than you understand it to be.

Not good enough. They should also announce how they're going to fix this situation in the future.

I viewed it more as a humorous social commentary rather than a real tool.

A conservative would likely find a Hilary filter equally humorous and conducive to their viewpoints, but wouldn't actually install and use it.