ugh

Goodbye HN. After repeatedly demonstrating your racism and sexism I just cannot take it anymore. It was nice knowing you.

Doesn’t matter. They don’t care. It’s not the reason why they support old hardware. That’s a bullshit argument.

Oh, wow. You are the false equivalency master.

The problem here is not that the bot is annoying, the problem is that the bot is sexist. Responding to sexist remarks with something that signifies that those remarks are sexist is not the same as making sexist remarks. Whether or not those two bots are annoying is a different issue that is now used as an excuse to rationalize hating on the second bot.

How can you be so blind to that? I’m sitting here in disbelief.

Apple doesn‘t have a significant revenue stream from existing devices. Why does everyone think they are making lots of money by selling apps and media? They do not.

Well, that makes perfect sense. I do not understand what’s “anti-male” about it.

When it comes to child support, who matters first and foremost is the child. That’s who it’s all about.

Is it really the case that someone has to pay child support for a child that is proven to be not theirs?

I did some superficial googling and found the case of one man who has to pay child support even though a DNA test proved he is not the father, because he missed all the deadlines for challenging the ruling. That seems like an unfortunate edge case to me, not some general pattern one has to be worried about.

I think you might be mistaken about the legal situation, but I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.

I’m honestly curious, what are your reasons for writing this comment? It seems off-topic.

As far as I know Apple has yet to use its ability to pull apps from devices. Apple said it only will do it when malware appears and that has not yet happened.

I don’t see any opinions that are criminalized, sorry. I also still don’t see the slippery slope.

Making judgement calls is a normal part of the justice system. The powers it has will let you imagine numerous slippery slopes, so that isn’t an especially convincing argument.

It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.

Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†.

I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense.

Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected.

Being racist while doing it: Not ok.

It’s quite simple.

—

† In most cases and in this case.

Stealing and theft is often used to refer to things that are not stealing or theft in the legal sense. This is especially prevalent when talking about ideas and designs. The speakers usually do not want laws to change, they don't want to sue.

You cannot take the use of such words alone as an indication. That just makes no sense. Stealing and theft aren’t legal terms, not first and foremost. They only happen to also refer to legal concepts.

No irony nowhere.

(It's obviously not ironic if he doesn’t call for or wants to use legal protections. Being outraged about something doesn't mean you want to make it illegal. That’s an important difference and I'm not sure why so many people are ignorant of that difference.)

If it would be simpler you would get something much more complex than this calculator and once again ask the same question.

You are thinking about products and projects, the kid is thinking about having fun in a game. Totally different perspective.

It’s totally fun to just have fun without necessarily learning any important skills or developing a product that helps you make money.

Emphasizing speed misses qualities people actually love about Windows Phone 7 by miles. Only someone who is disconnected from or unfamiliar with the product will come up with stuff like that.

There is the stark and fresh design that (independently of whatever merits it might have) makes other mobile operating systems look old. There is the cohesiveness of the experience that even makes iOS look like it doesn’t know what it wants to be. There is the integration with Facebook that makes the phone personal without having to do anything†.

All those are things actual people praised about Windows Phone 7. Not speed in some highly constrained scenarios.

—

† If you use Facebook a lot. This might shock some people on HN, but most people who also can buy a smartphone do.

Not because of that. iTunes exists to make Apple’s hardware attractive, not the other way around. (Same with the App Store.) It’s pocket change for Apple. Just look at their quarterly reports to see what they are actually making money with.

They might want to keep the box around for the same reason there is a Mac mini (or they are still selling the iPhone 3GS and the iPad 2): To offer a low-priced entry point. They might also kill it because it clutters their product line. Or because it would be too cheap compared to a full-blown TV and everyone might just go with it instead of the TV.

Apple always said it's a hobby. Not sure wether that's just rhetoric. At any case, Apple TV has been steadily improving and is selling more and more.

I'm not sure about that. I saw articles about that on the front page of big news websites. Apple is a big deal, the press will report on them. Even worse: They will report about the scandal but likely not about steps someone takes to mitigate the problem or things that explain the problem. That way we here on HN might know very well every little detail about a scandal (including things that make the scandal less of a big deal) but the general public might not.

The Apple TV had numerous different UIs over the years, so it's safe to conclude that Steve Jobs also said yes to a UI in the past that he should have thrown out.

Steve Jobs mad numerous false calls over the years. He can be wrong, you know.

Follow the money. Collecting user information is (in most cases) a distraction for Apple that could blow up in their face and lead to a serious PR fallout. See locationgate. See Path's address book shenanigans.

It's in their best interest not only not to secretly collect user information, they also want to show that they care about stuff like that (because then they can point their finger at others).

Apple cares about credit card info (because that allows them to let their customers easily pay for everything, it lowers the barrier), but Apple doesn't have to covertly collect that, they are far too popular to need such shady tactics. And that's about it. iAds might matter, but it seems to be a flop and Apple isn't exactly heavily invested in it.

Something doesn't have to be illegal to be morally reprehensible. It's perfectly alright to think that copying a design should be legal and to still believe that it is morally wrong.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that when someone displays displeasure with something, they want it to be illegal. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good.Just because it's not good doesn't mean it should be illegal.

You definition of art (and Ebert’s, it seems) gets weirder by the second. Now we can add this deranged sentence to your definition of art: “If there are different ways of experiencing some work, it’s not art.”

The justification for that kind of mindless definition just makes no sense at all. The artist sets the parameters and all possible different endings (if they exist at all, most games don't have something like that) are obviously part of the artistic vision. Someone had to make those endings. The player certainly doesn’t. Why can the artistic vision only encompass a single way of experiencing a work? What’s the reasoning for that? Why can’t the artist offer multiple ways of experiencing a work and let a player (in this case) pick? Because doing stuff like that didn't used to be possible? Why add something as ridiculous as that to the definition?

It boggles the mind.

(Oh, and I was picking the pope because he is the customer - just like in this case customers of the game are complaining and potential customers say they want things changed before they buy. Talking about tourists in this context makes no sense at all.)

This is fun! There have to be millions of definitions of art, each one weirder than the next.

Your definition seems to include bizarre sentences like “When the creators can (maybe ‘sometimes do’ would be better here) change their work after they released it, that work is not art.” Maybe you qualify sentences like that further (and propel it to ever more bizarre heights) to only include changes made because of public pressure.

Throughout history, many artists took commissions. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was a commissioned work. Do you really want to tell me that if we were to find out that Michelangelo was asked by the pope (the customer) to change something after he finished and did so, the fresco would no longer be a piece of art?

Stuff like that makes me never want to use the word art again. Videogames as works to be appreciated by others most certainly do not have to hide behind any other works made for the appreciation of others.

I don't really understand why you have a problem with these kinds of posts, then. You seem to be keenly aware of the fact that you are the problem and that you have to work to better yourself.

Yeah, and you are a Niete, niete.

Do you think the kid who calls everyone she dislikes gay – and thus uses homophobic language – really fears gay people? No, because that's not really what that word means, even if the dictionary says it means that. That’s how language works. Misogyny describes a very specific kind of sexism, and that’s just the case here.

Peace out from a dishonest offense seeker.

Yes, sometimes there are situation where you screw up an interview and don’t get the job. Sometimes there are situation where you write sexist crap and lose your sponsors. That happens.

Whoever made this will get a second chance, only not in this instance. Simple as that. It’s a mild punishment for being sexist. So what. Deserved.

Why do you think this is taking away from other efforts? I think calling out asshats is important and it doesn’t take all that much effort. It doesn't take away from anything else.

I’m not perfect. I’m all for second chances. And they will get them, no doubt. I’m not for banning them from society or anything like that.