smbullet

Hopefully this causes Meta to be more transparent about what data is sent to their annotators. It seems like even the annotators didn't know whether the person explicitly hit recorded (whether accidentally or not) or if it's samples from a constant stream. This kind of makes it impossible for anyone to consent to the purchase agreements.

Unfortunately that's kind of the reality for NYC. Since Bloomberg left it's been a one party city and ranked choice voting is implemented in the primary but not the general election. That means Democrats can feel comfortable voting for the most radical candidate in the primary without fear they might flop in the general election. Until we get ranked choice in the general election moderates and non-democrats don't really have a voice. This is especially true if multiple candidates run against the democratic nominee like in this election.

This argument reads like whataboutism. If you believe it's immoral to force Americans to pay for foreign aid then I don't see how the argument "well that money could be spent worse" is valid.

Do you have any examples of libertarian candidates that did not support individual rights?

What's your concern with people choosing to use Starlink?

This seems silly. I hate backwards compatibility but this change will just cause people to use `except BaseException` everywhere which seems even less idiomatic than bare excepts.

ETA: Nobody is going to dig through a large codebase to find exactly what exceptions can be bubbled up if they didn't design it with explicit exception handling in mind from the beginning. It will also potentially become a pattern people will copy in new code.

I 100% agree but unfortunately most people outright reject the moral argument

Your premise is wrong. The point of a free market is to allow supply and demand to accurately determine pricing. It is not a desired effect of the free market for production costs to always correlate or even be close to the price of goods or services. Changes in supply and/or demand can cause costs and prices to trend in opposite directions.

I'm getting one in May so I gave this a watch. The discussion on safety starts at around 6:30 with the concerns being over harvesting of donor areas, scarring, poor growth, and potential nerve damage. Make sure to find a clinic with an ISHRS physician (International Society of Hair Restoration Surgeons), that you can meet with the physician before they perform the surgery, and that the physician is actually performing the surgery instead of a technician. Pretty basic stuff that you'll find on Reddit.

Akaik Smile (the clinic this guy went to) actually offers two packages. A cheaper one where a technician will perform the incisions and a more expensive one where a physician will. I wonder which one this guy chose. It seemed to turn out alright.

Subreddit posts per day is really not a great metric to track engagement. You probably want comments or votes per day.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

That sounds a lot like profit, no?

Is Source 2 out?

I'll admit I was a bit snarky but my thanks was genuine - I enjoy learning why people believe the things they do.

Anyways, my final argument is if an individual asset of a company doesn't directly generate revenue yet increases company profit, would it not be "un-capitalistic" if that company were to extinguish that asset? It seems to me that throwing away profit would be antithetical to that definition of capitalism.

The $30k espresso machine in the Google office does nothing to generate revenue, however it helps Google become more competitive in the labor market which (at least they think) increases profit. None of these situations are edge cases, they are just natural outcomes that exist when people are free to compete. If it is expected that a decision will lead to a profit, it seems straightforward that one would make that decision.

It was fun discussing this with you, I hope you have a good day.

That's an interesting misconception of what capitalism is. I had not seen that one before. Thank you for sharing.

Private ownership and the protection of those property rights are exactly what capitalism is. As long as there is no coercive entity dictating what YC can and cannot do with it's capital then HN absolutely is a product of capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't mean "earn[ing] enough through its service to support itself". Why do you think that people are not free to finance sites that promote other branches of their business under capitalism?

How is this not a straightforward example of capitalism? This site is privately owned, therefore it is free to flow in the capital market.

You described exactly why this law isn't necessary. Property rights already exist and can be enforced without infringing on another's.

I enjoy how you jump to the defense of ravers and entrepreneurs and in the same sentence call a roadhouse located in Idaho "low class". There's something very poetic about this cognitive dissonance.

"3rd party repositories

Third party repositories are not under our control what so ever. If you think a 3rd party repository is violating your rights you will have to get in contact with their respective operators. Procedures described here apply exclusively to f-droid.org."

From your first link.

This argument seems tautological.

- If he's charging for the service now then he'll clearly do anything to maximize profits.

- If the service remains free then he clearly needs to sell granular user data to stay above water.

Perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make but I don't think you can conclude anything from this.

That reason might be a nice scapegoat that they invented after criticism because it's mentioned nowhere in their official announcement.

There are three big reasons why we’re removing SMS support for the Android app now: prioritizing security and privacy, ensuring people aren’t hit with unexpected messaging bills, and creating a clear and intelligible user experience for anyone sending messages on Signal.

https://signal.org/blog/sms-removal-android/

So I think this "myth" will probably persist for a while.

I don't know where you got terrorism from. The definition under question is "domestic extremism" which is not well defined. Depending on who you ask an extremist can vary between anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment to actual terrorists.

America has an enormous obesity problem which contributes to a significant number of Covid fatalities. When we tell Americans to get healthy it's mostly targeted towards those people.

Could you please explain how an optional feature is user exploitation?

It doesn't sound like either of those reverts are necessarily for malicious patches. They are reverting all commits from umn.edu addresses regardless of their involvement with this professor.

The allegations are all innuendo without proof

Unless you have proof that the allegations are false then you cannot say the absolute worst case is she has a questionable history.

at worst, questionable

Don't you mean at best?

I'll admit that if the GP holds the opinion that all ad blockers are "scummy" then I wouldn't be bothered. But considering I never see ublock origin get criticism here I have to assume that when most people criticize Brave's business model, they don't actually care about the publishers.

That's a feature, not a bug. The point of the Brave ad blocker is to (optionally) replace unethical ads with ethical ones so you can compensate the content creators you browse. How is this scummy?