HN user
A person expressing wonder at a surprising situation does not require shaming.
And yes, I think when a person finds themselves in a situation like this they should be examining their life choices.
I don't know why it's on hn though.
This is an odd statement, and I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
What are you actually suggesting here?
I work in this field, and I've never seen a device that isn't dead simple be able to clear the FDA for $200k. I've definitely never seen a medical device with software anywhere near this.
The reason people don't switch to medical devices is because even a fairly simple device without software or electronics can still take between $750k and $1.2M to develop and clear the FDA. Adding software is a cost & time multiplier.
The slash is read as "OR" in this case.
As in: Unix-like OR POSIX-compliant
In that light, it's probably fine to not nitpick over certifications here.
Meta: down votes here prove no such thing. If you are downvoted it's because you read the article that had nothing to do with politics, the comment on a vision of heaven and hell that had nothing to do with politics, and then you made it about something that is very politicized in the US.
Both the article and comment you commented on eschewed a trite political message and tried to say something real and human.
"... won't work well on mobile."
You're missing the part in Christianity where he comes again, this time as triumphant victor who overcame all things to save the human family.
"> Dennis"
I assumed this was referring to a simple seated position, but I was incorrect. He had people in some odd poses for meditation. Thank you for posting the source.
More accurately, why WebKit was forked from khtml by Apple.
Well, the author of the article found several people sharing experiences that they heard from other people that seem to give credence to that view.
Hard to know at this point if the problem is with specific judges, with the way the law is written, or if the presentation of these experiences are made to seem more numerous by the way the article presents the story. It also didn't cover instances of abuse coming from mothers, so there's at least a little bias in the story.
When we say "everyone in science", I think the part that people find scary is that it's hard to tell who is in science versus who is in 'science'.
Or in other words, it's hard to tell from the outside who really believes what you're stating and who believes it until it's inconvenient, or until it clashes with their personal ideology.
I'm not clear on what the second paragraph is adding to your example in the first.
Hiring doesn't work like that. It's not like you glance at resumes then hire someone because what the paper says matches your job description. You spend a lot of time, if you're doing it right. Some resumes have everything you want, but aren't honest. Some resumes don't have everything, but they're pretty close, and worth the conversation. Some people seem perfect on paper but once you talk with them you realize (for whatever reason) that they don't fit. Even just a few applicants can take many hours of work before you can pick the one that fits best what you're looking for.
If you're a team of 5, handling 1,200 resumes, how much money are you expected to invest in this process? Does everyone take a week off billable work so you can find someone? Can you afford that? With only a team of 5, probably not.
We all want to feel like we're being treated well, but scolding someone because they were overwhelmed by the massive amount of adversarial spam they received for their job posting is a failure to put yourself in their shoes. Let's all be better people, here.
Can't wait to go to jail for texting a meme to the group chat.
For a second I thought that was a great hypothetical example, then I remembered that's a thing that actually happens now in the UK and got a little sad instead.
If capitalists can't solve problems, who do you suggest can?
And yet the founding fathers made it pretty clear that they were all for every able-bodied man having guns, including private citizens owning artillery.
The relative lethality of a particular style of rifle doesn't seem to matter. Better guns than muskets were available at the time, and they didn't seem to think it necessary to limit that amendment.
I don't think your opinions about the history and purpose of the second amendment holds water.
"Wilder times" is an interesting description of the early days of the country. When I look around at the violence the last several years (mass rioting, looting, uptick in murder pretty much everywhere, etc. etc.), I feel like that description applies pretty well to our times as well.
That being the case, I would say their opinions and beliefs are pretty important to the current national climate.
Which reasons are you referring to? I've never heard this comparison between masking during two pandemics 100+ years apart.
[...]about one school shooting or mass shooting every two days proves that at least one member of the species isn't uniformly ready to have firearms.
I often see comments online descending into the argument about firearms. Besides the potential number of people hurt/killed, what's the difference between someone walking into a school with a gun versus one walking into a school with a knife? Or a sharpened spear (from other comments in the thread)?
In many ways, I think a knife could be worse. You can hurt/kill a lot of people very quietly with a knife, leaving most of the school none the wiser. They're easier to conceal, easier to make from non-metallic substances (and thus can be easier to sneak past metal detectors.) I imagine people would be a lot less concerned about a knife collection than a gun collection, etc etc.
I don't disagree with your comment about someone not being ready for a firearm. However, I think that the argument that we're not recognizing the dangers of "gun free" zones as potential targets (by at least one statistic, 94% of mass shootings in the US happen in a "gun free" zone) and mitigating that danger in a meaningful way actually supports your point about syncophantic AIs better.
Is there a place where it isn't dead in the world? It seems to be the attitude everywhere nowadays.
Doxing is more than exposure. It's exposing someone's real world identity online, often with the intent to harm them. It's the harming portion that I think most people are objecting to. While I doubt most of us have enough online notoriety for us to be targeted in this kind of attack, the idea is still very uncomfortable personally.
The cultures I'm aware of that practice meditation value letting go of the things that keep you attached to physical existence, because they're looking forward to a spiritual existence that value more highly.
For my part, I feel that there's value in critically examining parts of your life and deciding what really matters. If something matters, fight for it. If it turns out something didn't, or it doesn't any more, let it go so you can make room in your life for more important things.
Mold design is still difficult when the parts aren't dead simple. The software I've seen is okay with the simple stuff, but once you get even a little more complex you have to understand simultaneously how to design good parts for molding and how to design good molds, both of which are heavily dependent on the type of plastic you're using and the size of the press you have access to. Not to mention how to machine good molds from metal, which is a challenge all on its own due to surface finish and tolerance requirements (and weird geometry that makes the CAM choke...)
In other words, we're not really there yet to bring that activity into the hobby realm. But I hope that we're not too far away.
While the sentence is poorly constructed, it clearly doesn't mean that.
I worry that both sides of the political spectrum are doing the same thing: de-humanizing people with different points of view.
I'm sure everyone knows what Voltaire said about this: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Is there any chance we can return to the idea that people can disagree with us without being dead to us afterward?
I don't personally know of any, but I'd like to. Do you have some examples to share?
I think you are right, and it would be wonderful if people could mind their own business more.
I can't speak for the original commentator, but my own experience is one of trying to mind my own business and having this experience thrust upon me by people who are very excited about their pets.
I guess I'd like people to keep their pets to themselves the way I keep my kids to myself: if someone asks I'm generally happy to talk about them, otherwise I don't volunteer information.
I like to use the phrase "skibidi" wrong. My kids make the greatest faces.