HN user

nabergh

69 karma
Posts1
Comments30
View on HN

The fact that humans have always owned land is a meaningless argument. We can all decide to use a better system for anything if we agree on it.

Insect Hotel 4 years ago

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Naturally occurring insect habitats don't get cleaned out, right?

Are these fair statements to make? Most counties don't set up infrastructure for early voting at the same capacity as they do for election day voting. This level of early voting turnout is unprecedented right? Of course people shouldn't have to wait in line to vote and it's great that these people are but I think people abroad are not getting the full picture.

Malaria No More 6 years ago

Shame being philanthropy's strongest motivator is too cynical a perspective for me. Also, many people take pride in defying those who tell them that they're living their life wrong in some way so I believe shame backfires more often than not.

fwiw, I have found video quality on Meet to be by far the worst out of any video chat app I've ever used. My company pays for g suite but all the video in my google meetings range between 320x240 and flip phone video from 15 years ago, and I swear I'm not exaggerating. This can happen even with a 2 person meeting. I've never had this issue with Zoom.

Firefox 72.0 7 years ago

This is correct and it also applies when middle clicking a link. That's where it really matters for me.

Firefox 72.0 7 years ago

My biggest gripe with Firefox is how it opens tabs. If I open a new tab in Chrome, it opens just to the right of the current one which is nice because it keeps related tabs together. In Firefox it opens to the far right which is annoying. I tried installing an extension to fix this but it was buggy. Only recently did I discover that I could dig into about:config to enable the behavior I consider expected (and I'm sure most people agree with me given how many Chrome users there are).

It does. Government announcements would still be available online if they were originally posted on a government website and their reposted content was removed from Twitter afterwards. It would be harder to make the case that Twitter is preventing citizens from viewing their governments' announcements if those announcements are also available on government websites, which I believe is the primary concern.

When I was a high school sophomore, Blackboard allowed you to customize your student homepage with widgets, one of which was a "notes" widget which allowed you to save random strings which would be displayed on your page next time you loaded it. Fortunately, if you saved arbitrary html, it would be rendered so we embedded flash games for us to play during classes which allowed computer use.

I don't think people are arguing that collectibles are the problem. They're arguing that the gambling is.

In this context, we're defining gambling as exchanging money for a chance at receiving something of value. I think that's a reasonable definition and it certainly fits here.

I think it's not very clear from the article because the article doesn't claim that sipping water throughout the day isn't very good, just that it doesn't cause some neurons to fire.

Do you have any source for "sipping water throughout the day is not very good" and "sipping all day means the body never gets rest from the 'water intake mode'"?

I would definitely be hooked on that particular game and still throwing money out for -- not much but a faster reward-cycle.

Do you think that's an inherently bad thing? Maybe it was for you at the time but I feel like the ability to reliably turn money into entertainment (in this case "a faster reward-cycle") is a great thing to have available to people who already have their basic needs met.

I wouldn't be so convinced that passengers are willing to pay these surge prices to go home. Sure, the first time a passenger encounters this artificial surge, they're already planning on taking uber/lyft home so they'll pay it because they probably don't have another option immediately available. But the next time a passenger arrives at DCA (could be a month or two), they might remember uber/lyft is expensive when they land so they would have arranged a different option to leave the airport. Consumer reaction to prices changes may not always be immediate. These drivers are operating in their own interest in the short term but who knows if they are in the long term.

This is really cool to think about. In practice though I would imagine every incorrect prediction to be incredibly jarring. Additionally my intuition is that latency is easier to decrease than predicting the next 30ms. If there is some level of latency that is very difficult to reduce (more so than training an AI to predict the next 30ms with very high accuracy), I'd be curious to know why.