SilasX

17 ms·

241.
by SilasX 2y ago
That would describe everyone who follows a major religion as well.
242.
by SilasX 2y ago
If someone says something correct that they just learned, they don't deserve ridicule just because they learned it recently and others are saying it too.
243.
by SilasX 2y ago
Yes, and again, that doesn't make it wrong or irrelevant. Believe it or not, the popular wisdom can still be correct!
244.
by SilasX 2y ago
What are you talking about? I see two pages, just of submissions on HN, before early last year: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1706400000&dateRange=custom&... I see over 900 results just for comments: https:/
245.
by SilasX 2y ago
But cutting a few of them doesn’t mean the transactions don’t happen, they’re just slightly delayed, so you can’t count the full value of those transactions as a loss. To adapt the old saying, the internet interprets cut cables as unreachab
246.
by SilasX 2y ago
True, but you can do a much richer set of transactions with Ethereum/Solana, like moving stablecoins and making collateralized borrows, including against real world (tokenized) assets.
247.
by SilasX 2y ago
Separate comment because meta: wow. Just ... wow. It took rayiner forever to get an extremely basic point that was well-explained from the beginning. I still feel frustration from re-reading that. And even once he finally got the point,
248.
by SilasX 2y ago
Annoying, but not a tautology. What I think you mean is repetitiveness or violation of horror aequi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_aequi A tautology would be “they do it because they do it”.
249.
by SilasX 2y ago
I made a connection to this practice in the HN discussion about the court case over chalking tires for parking enforcement, and the extent to which we really regard your car as being sacrosanct against touching. https://news.ycom
250.
by SilasX 2y ago
English has the same issue with ordinals. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... then back to 101st, 102nd.
251.
by SilasX 2y ago
That wasn’t a political statement. Per your link, it was a belief that that could not continue the credit card payments while staying in compliance with the law.
252.
by SilasX 2y ago
The question was whether you would roll your eyes at the startup and have no sympathy for that startup because of the "big chunk of change" they could have gotten selling it. You can both believe that the requirement is justif
253.
by SilasX 2y ago
>this doesn't get enough attention. ByteDance could have easily partitioned off the US environment and made bank selling it. but the influence potential was too juicy for CCP to let ByteDance sell it. I think that's kind of tri
254.
by SilasX 2y ago
>When you point out that, for example, health insurance profits are low single digit percentage of overall healthcare costs they just don’t believe it. It's not that I don't believe it, it's that this figure is completely
255.
by SilasX 2y ago
>If the grocery store decides to remove the prices from everything, and require its shoppers to first call its billing department only open until 5pm to receive a set of numbers, then call their third party subscription service only open
256.
by SilasX 2y ago
Yes, it is pretty silly to think American healthcare would no longer be a global laughingstock if surprise bills of $5000 were replaced with surprise bills of $4700.
257.
by SilasX 2y ago
Exactly. Even if you forced doctor compensation down to the level of other countries, that's, what, a 6% overall reduction, at best? Wow, so now when you get a surprise bill for $5000, it'll instead be $4700 instead! Hooray! We di
258.
by SilasX 2y ago
Right, there’s the longstanding joke about whether you’re taking real geology vs “rocks for jocks”.
259.
by SilasX 2y ago
IMHO, your original interpretation is correct. The rule is about the UX of the article itself. In a story about Slack UX with respect to accessibility ... general issues with Slack UX seem topical enough.
260.
by SilasX 2y ago
Okay then there are better ways to phrase that distinction, because what you've described is still "licensing stock photography". The editorial arm is just a means by which they license.
261.
by SilasX 2y ago
I know it's not entirely in keeping with the spirit of this site, but there's a part of me that really wants to snark, "Oh no! We might no longer have meaningful competition for random-ass, dumbed-down, emotionally manipulati
262.
by SilasX 2y ago
>Shutterstock and Getty do not make money from their stock photography catalog, most of their revenue comes from maintaining exclusive contracts for editorial content (news photos, videos, etc) and selling licenses to those assets. How a
263.
by SilasX 2y ago
Our rival high school’s debate/drama team made a website c. 1999, and by some miracle, Tripod keeps it up: https://mcneilforensics.tripod.com
264.
by SilasX 2y ago
Exactly. That’s precisely the angle someone would use if they were trying to hoax or embarrass your publication.
265.
by SilasX 2y ago
Ouch. That would hurt to hear. It's like they're effectively saying, "yeah, obviously you came up with something more significant than this, which you're holding back. No one would be so incapable that this was as fa
266.
by SilasX 2y ago
I still expect people to raise awareness if and when they're caught in a perverse incentive/Moloch situation so as to give the public greater insight into how it can be fixed. Health insurers ... don't seem to do that. Earlie
267.
by SilasX 2y ago
Most of that is irrelevant here. All they have to do is put in an interest bearing account, and pay out some amount less than they're earning. Furthermore, they will effectively owe you less than even the principle since they (on avera
268.
by SilasX 2y ago
Hm interesting. I think that would also explain why they make gift cards expire or lose value over time, even though, if anything, they should be paying you interest because you’re giving them a(n otherwise) free loan.
269.
by SilasX 2y ago
>(2) Determine if the treatment is medically necessary. >You are not hiring insurance companies to do the second part but they do it any way in order to increase their profits. They should be removed from this role via legislation. Ok
270.
by SilasX 2y ago
Yeah, I've given up on expecting to know what people will understand "next Wednesday" to mean. I either say "this coming Wednesday" or "next week on Wednesday". Problems solved. Well, usually. I've st

More ›