JimmieMcnulty

7 ms·

1.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Uh, what? White males have been speaking freely (and continue to do so) for as long as the concept of racial hierarchy has existed. The American tech industry is run by (straight) white men, we're doing most of the speaking, highly di
2.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Well, it may be possible for you to simply not talk about politics, but for folks who have their rights stripped away, their water made undrinkable, their loved ones ripped from them or shunned for simply existing, should they also not ta
3.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
What's funny is that none of the big tech firms would need to change their policies or behaviors, should this actually become the law of the land, as there are currently no policies that prohibit political speech from any of their plat
4.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Everything here seems pretty fine (if basic), So often I see engineers screw this up, usually by forgetting a few things: * They only have some of the information, and don’t account for that fact. * Their goals aren’t the same as a leader’s
5.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
(One of) the largest retailers in the world also does this, I believe.
6.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
What annoys me is your continued refusal to acknowledge the unfair lack of recourse available for someone who disagrees with a decision you’ve made, and your flippant attitude around making those decisions when it comes to people you don’t
7.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Yes, because you can easily know the owners of every American corporation today.[0] This policy was updated in December of 2021. But, again, completely irrelevant to the broader topic of conversation, privacy. [0] https://www.fi
8.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Contradiction?
9.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
The fact that you equate "privacy" with "warrants as a concept" is kind of sad, but I doubt you're capable of learning better, given your pretty terrible attitude thusfar.
10.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
> Users here are extremely quick to push back if we do something they find objectionable. This is simply not true; you act like you're the only person who's been around here for 15 years. There is simply no mechanism to organi
11.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
That's your opinion, and fortunately not one that nearly anyone shares. You're doing a common Internet Thing by twisting a conversation into the topic you actually want to talk about, even though it's wholly unrelated. Just b
12.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Housing supply is increasing, just not where you feel entitled to live. Move somewhere else! Tons of houses are constantly being built where I live, in a flyover state. Not everyone gets to live in San Fran or Chicago.
13.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
And 7 hours later, ETH is down ~10%.
14.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Nope, not privacy related at all. I should know who I'm doing business with.
15.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
I can both believe in the concept of a warrant and wish to hide my identity from people like you.
16.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Because we all agree that warrants do need to exist to catch bad guys... I refuse to continue a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in the concept of a warrant.
17.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
> People are getting prosecuted, criminally, right now. Name one person who is being prosecuted for obtaining an abortion, and that prosecution is moving forward due to evidence collected from any kind of extrajudicial breach of privacy.
18.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
I'm glad you recognize how fundamentally different the world is today than how it was in the 1930s, because not realizing that would probably confuse the hell out of you a lot of the time.
19.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Again, I get that bad things happen, but none of what you've brought up would have been prevented with better privacy in practice. It's well beyond "privacy" to believe that ownership of a corporation should be hidden i
20.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
So your most recent widespread example is 80+ years ago, and then a very tiny hypothetical set of lawsuits that have not been filed (zero prosecutions are "under way")?
21.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
You could try bringing up relevant situations where a breach of privacy was the proximate cause of a systemic negative consequence on a large scale, rather than irrelevant-but-also-terrible things that weren't directly caused by a lack
22.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
I don't think folks are upset with Andrew because he disobeyed a law, they're upset with him because they believe what he did was morally repugnant.
23.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
A guy who cares about evaluating the likelihood and significance of an event taking place. I'm not value judging this, I'm just trying to determine if it's worth reacting to, and based on the number of folks effected, the sev
24.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
No you haven’t, not to any meaningful degree.
25.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
That’s a silly response, as clothes aren’t worn for “hiding”, but for the negative social consequences of the alternative. Ignoring the role social taboo plays in that interaction isn’t intellectually honest.
26.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Eh, you may not “know” something like this, but considering it’s never happened in my country in my lifetime at any appreciable scale, it’s probably not very likely, and doesn’t realistically factor into my threat model. If you want to “wor
27.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
An irrelevant claim then, as the comment you originally replied to wasn’t about “feature branches”. You originally replied talking about how hard branches are to merge, but then revealed you also use branches to develop features, thus revea
28.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Isn’t that the problem? You see your own shallow dismissals as tediously neutral, but others as violations of the guidelines. For example, in this comment here that I’m replying to, you caveat what you say, and yet you don’t caveat any of
29.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Isn't describing this comment as "fulmination" snarky, which is itself a violation of the guidelines? It's at least a shallow dismissal of their opinion, for sure. How can you expect people to follow these rules when yo
30.
by JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
You're claiming what your team did wasn't "develop features in a branch", when you did precisely that.

More ›