HN user
The belief that one can or should judge another person (ie, on the normalness of their emotional intelligence) is quite boring, and is particularly annoying in coworkers. It is by definition fun to work with people who joke around, if one starts with thick skin, an open mind, and the confidence to occasionally be the butt of the joke.
I'd rather work with someone who makes good (or even bad) jokes about my code in reviews than a humorless bore who spends all their time policing everyone's appropriateness according to his own stodgy cultural standards.
I live in Minneapolis less than a mile from the fifth precinct. There are in fact metric F-Tons of out of state cars in the neighborhood since late last week. Tons of violence tourists driving around gawking, and several cars with NO plates trawling around to boot. The thugaroos we've seen "patrolling", and who neighbors have had "friendly" chats with have been rural white guys feigning concern (White-knighting, one might even say) that we dont have enough guns to protect ourselves. The burning has been targeted at certain businesses that nobody local has beef with (Ie the post office- that racist institution, the gas station that everyone buys their gas from- even if you hate gas companies and hate standing in line, you recognize when you're hurting your neighbors).
Sure, the police haven't arrested many of these out of staters, non-community members, but they are most certainly here. They had to walk back their comments because they can't just say "but we're there in the community and we see it".
He's capturing availability, the manufacturer made the availability. There is no value-adding middle man role with a 10x value here (well value to anyone other than the middle man).
What is the roadmap for supporting an Action that can push a commit (say a version bump) to a protected branch?
Cookie AutoDelete.
Also there's some weird bug with external monitors where after waking up from sleeping the TrueTone is maladjusted leaving the screen super dark- turning TrueTone off and back on again (of course) fixes it.
Learning German, he says, is particularly useful when applying oneself to the task of understanding the Germans, which he seems to be implying may be quite soon something of interest to (con and noncon) tinental Europe.
Found the smoker.
Joking aside, non-smokers should not have to pay the insurance costs of smokers. It is all fine and good if you want to do that to yourself, but you should also have to pay for it. Simply not hiring smokers is the right decision, they dont get tangled up in the details of sorting out what diseases stem from smoking and what are natural.
It's different paying for insurance to cover incidents or conditions that people can't control (accidents, genetic diseases), or would be bad for society to not cover (pregnancy, psychological issues).
I upvoted you because I agree that thought and speech are clearly different things.
However, regulating people's speech leads to contradictions that can only be solved by picking a side- the side that the government decides is the right one, ie the more powerful side. If you're on this side, it's clear that you think it's the true one.
How do you balance the "harm" (hurt feelings, something that all but the most isolated delicacies learn to deal with by the age of 15) against the harm of restricting someone's speech? Certainly there's a similar psychological harm in not being allowed to express one's thoughts? (Not to mention the lost opportunity to engage in productive development of one's understanding..)
European cities have much higher population density, and the lower personal income (often via higher taxes and, ironically, worker protection laws) changes the tradeoff between driving and taking pub trans, so more people take the bus. The tradeoff is that a lot of people live in small boxes.
And european governments have plenty of bs job creation engines like roadwork, too.
Would be nice to have some data. One related observation, that seems less surprising the longer I live here, is that europe has no spacex, google, tesla, nasa, coherent mars rovers, the list goes on... if you give people stuff, they're mostly just afraid someone's going to take it away. But yeah, to echo someone else's comment, I'd rather be poor, or even average, in Europe. I guess being super wealthy here wouldn't be that bad either, since nobody's nipping at your heels.
It's an extraordinary claim that mainland has been supporting HK. What support do you mean by this?
And what other master is comparable (in demonstrated authoritarianism, number of tanks, willingness to roll said tanks, etc...) to the Chinese communist party?
An important aspect of leadership is the courage to do the right thing, even at risk to one's own personal comfort and safety. In light of facts, you could make the argument that either she doesn't believe in the importance of sovereignty for her fellow citizens, or she doesn't have the courage to speak up for it.
Yes, but only if you access from within Madrid.
This really seems like the Right Way(tm) to approach this because it acknowledges that the google isn't attempting to be an authoritative source for what's really a subjective truth, and it presents the "most true" version of reality based on where you're coming from. And has the added benefit, one imagines, of being even more infuriating to those trying to push their One True Truth down everyone else's throats.
This of course. Why is anyone in the least surprised that Google doesn't want the ads that fund Chrome (and everything else they do) to be blocked by the users of Chrome. Shall Google fund our nice things (like Firefox, Chrome, gmail, google maps, etc etc) with hopes and dreams in place of cold hard cash? The audacity.
Clearly an unpopular opinion here, but anyway: I'm happy to let a few ads slip through (which I will happily ignore anyhow) in exchange for the possibility of a future where I dont have to drive a car to get places.
Just out of curiosity, what was considered cool?
It's surprising to me how many people seem to think that the FBI should be taking into consideration things that (I would think) belong to the realm of parenting. Maybe that viewpoint is a lot more normal than I personally think it should be.
I do not want the FBI wasting my tax dollars trying to parent sources (or anyone for that matter). They're a law enforcement agency, not DHHS.
The parents were paying his internet bill (and everything else), it seems safe to conclude they had considerably more influence over his life direction than the FBI.
Remember the parents gifted him a vacation to SE Asia to meet the jihadi bride. Yeah, you want your kid to have a girlfriend, but there can be limits.
The article also doesn't tell us how much he actually worked for the FBI, other than that they didn't pay him very much (implying not very much). There are a small number of anecdotes, but presumably the article's authors know more and could have told us more.. How many reports did he write? How many did he get paid for? How many times did they meet over the five years, from when he was 23 to when he was 28? Ten? Five hundred?
It does tell us that Agent Tim went to Villanova (amongst other irrelevant personal information), so I guess that means he's supposed to play a parenting role to the sources he manages.
There are several paragraphs that only serve to imply the narrative that the FBI sent him there and are covering it up.
The FBI’s Confidential Human Source Policy Guide said a handler must give “an emergency communication plan” to a source traveling abroad.
As an FBI source, Billy was required to report foreign travel, even vacations. The bureau has the authority to dispatch sources on foreign missions. It is one of the U.S. agencies responsible for disrupting terror cells abroad.
Since we're going over the FBI's rules and powers, the article should ask, does the FBI have the authority to block a source's vacations? That would be relevant.
There is zero concrete evidence presented that the FBI sent him to Russia. If there is any, that would support the premise that the FBI shares some responsibility for the result. But none has been presented.
Also, it's not really the FBI's role to show that they "care". Probably the people involved do care, as individuals and humans. I feel bad for the guy too, he sounds like he was just a bit lost in life. However, in terms of their jobs, they paid an adult to gather information online, which it seems he was pretty good at. Then he got a bee in his bonnet to go to a war zone (at the invitation of the FSB?) How are they supposed to manage that? That's next level. It sounds like they're doing their best to stay professional, considering the circumstances, and not make any public statements about his (apparently very poor) judgement. The statement that the FBI did not direct him to travel abroad says pretty much everything.
Surely the point of the article was not that the FBI has one less asset now.
A hit piece is a story. Presented in a biased way.
The title says clearly that the FBI is responsible for losing him. But it sounds like he actually wandered off into the wilderness on his own.
-- edit --
Oops, I wrote 'hit piece' originally and changed it to FUD. But still, the implication is that the FBI is a menace and that they're lying about their involvement.
Yes, that sucks. But.
Assuming the FBI asked him not to go, why and how should they FBI put resources into finding out what he did and what happened to him? Whether the FBI sent him there or not, he decided on his own to stay beyond his plan, and then enter a war zone. Everyone who does some contracting for the FBI deserves world-wide babysitting service?
It is a sad story, but from reading it, I dont think they manipulated him into going overseas. If you just look factually at the statements of the FBI, not the implications, it sounds like they asked him not to go, but he went anyway. Seems like the responsibility is not the FBI's, he's 28, old enough to take responsibility for his own decisions.
There's even some implication that they intervened and shut down his other trip (to meet a woman he wanted to marry in ISIS territory! Bad Idea!). So FBI knew about the Russia trip but didn't shut it down maybe because he wasn't an employee they control? It's a free country, you dont need an exit visa. And asking him for contact info doesn't necessarily imply that they asked him to go. The article danced around that question, implying that FBI asked him to go (because they knew he went), but it's hard to imagine the FBI thinking the guy was a competent field agent (after shutting down the jihadi-bride trip). What would anyone have to gain from him bumbling around Donetsk/Russia? He was adept at penetrating jihadi chat groups, why would they risk that asset?
It seems that (from what little we have to go on) the agent handling him was far more concentrated on the middle east, but asked him to do a one-off on Donetsk, and he got interested in that region on his own.
Also it says that FSB invited him over. That was the big red flag for me: "Hey Mom! guess what?! FSB invited me to Russia!! w00t!" What happened to that paper? What did it say exactly?? Why would you tell your mom that FSB invited you to Russia?
Something's not quite right in this narrative, so many holes.
WSJ is doing FBI FUD pieces now?
is behind a paywall, how can I read this article?
Fret not, Shunkov is just reciting the magical incantation meaning to keep the funds flowing, for instance.
I was also curious, maybe because the statement was a surprise. There are certainly differences between cultures, so how would you even decide which empathy distribution was the best one?
I did find a longer discussion of the topic, so it seems the idea wasn't pulled out of thin air, but it still isn't a measurement: https://chublicopinion.com/2015/12/06/the-unbearable-coldnes...
As a "late" chronotype living in Germany (Bavaria specifically - different states have different laws) I can confirm this. Also, the government makes lots of other decisions on the putative behalf of the individual. There's more involuntary tradeoffs (imho) that don't necessarily work out in your favor. The argument is that it's better for society, but implicitly that means everyone has to subscribe to the same narrowly defined concept of society.
Another jerk here-- Something Happened is literally the worst book I have ever read. The title is nearly literally true, only one thing happens in its many hundreds of pages (by my hazy memory).
In 100 years, we'll still be rich enough to afford cars, just they will be electric and self-driving. People only take public transportation because there's no parking, it's faster and/or cheaper, or they can get other stuff done while on it. All these being equal, people will choose cars.