HN user

thinkmilitant

44 karma
Posts1
Comments33
View on HN

"IF you have Grammerly plugin in your browser they capture EVERYTHING you type into a browser, and you've given them all of the rights to that data, for which they can sublicense at fee."

While it does seem like their TOS gives them the legal out to do this, is it not more likely that this is merely a CYA measure to cover any data they happen to collect and any way they happen to use it? If their TOS narrowly covered only the data they planned to collect and the uses they expected to have for it I would imagine every change to their code would become a potential legal liability.

I would add, when mixing money and friends/family is unavoidable absolutely insist on a well worded contract. I know many people think that this is some sort of taboo among people you are close to, but it is essential all parties are very clear about what to expect from one another once money enters the picture.

It doesn't guarantee a trouble free time, but it at least avoids the tragic and very common "miscommunications".

>If we are still emitting carbon in 2100, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Do you have any sources for this claim? From what I understand, the science does not support this claim. I've seen models predicting 200ft sea level rises, a drastic increase in deserts, and a possible failure of our current agricultural system, among other things. These are undoubtedly bad, but are far from rendering Earth "uninhabitable".

An echo from a previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14710571

Exaggerations like this remind me of the anti-drug adds of my childhood. So much harm is done by over reaching the bounds of reality when trying to convince someone that an action could lead to harm. It's a quick way to have them doubting every part of your message.

-What do they stand to gain from building?-

I would assume dolphins still die from lack of food, disease, and predation. One(human) would assume they might want to build something to reduce those odds?

To my mind, it is not about funding or not funding security at airports/borders/etc. It's about if terrorism poses enough of a threat to be worth compromising our standards of governance. We can fund and support security in these zones without suspending our civil liberties and we should.

I think we'll be asking this question over and over in the coming decades.

I personally think it would be foolish to take a hard-line stance on our law enforcement agencies adopting new, more powerful tools to do their job. We don't need to freeze our law enforcement agencies in the 20th century. We do need to open them up to increased transparency and oversight to ensure these tools are used correctly.

I agree. It seems to me that the biggest difference is the extent to which the average internet user gets his content from other internet users (reddit, facebook, twitter, etc) instead of designated content creators with reputations to uphold.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about not maintaining existing infrastructure which seems to be what the wiki entry you linked is about. I was talking about a freeze in new infrastructure specifically to allow for existing infrastructure to be better maintained and better utilized.

No offense intended, but you could say this about anything.

-I often see the opinion on HN that opposing vaccination is anti-science. I know this article is not about vaccines, but can we really say with confidence that the scientific research done on vaccination hasn't been influenced in the same way?-