XCabbage

25 ms·

181.
by XCabbage 8y ago
> If a company approves taking customers to strip clubs then there's no reason not to itemize it as such. Who says it wasn't itemized as such? We know nothing about how the expenses system in question works, and a hierarchica
182.
by XCabbage 8y ago
I read it as "the expenses software requires expenses to be filed under one of a small number of categories, and the employee went for 'hotel' because it was the closest one available". I guess both interpretations are p
183.
by XCabbage 8y ago
If I go to a steakhouse and then a strip club, submitting all the receipts for the night under the heading of "steakhouse business dinner" seems basically honest. I'm assuming that's what happened, just because in my ima
184.
by XCabbage 8y ago
These people seem to have a strange definition of "fraud". In the first two paragraphs, they list three apparent "frauds" and then note that they were detected by analysing the receipts that the employees submitted . In
185.
by XCabbage 8y ago
I've generally read on Hacker News that having EU users is sufficient to put you within the GDPR's reach, and that for a web service there's therefore nothing that will protect you besides IP-blocking Europe. The quote that y
186.
by XCabbage 8y ago
No, everything you say here is incorrect. The case being described in that article IS the appeal to the ECHR, which upheld her conviction.
187.
by XCabbage 8y ago
Saying that your freedom of speech is only inhibited when you want you say things that are illegal is almost a tautology. Based on your reasoning, it's also "fair" for gay rights activists in Uganda or critics of the king in
188.
by XCabbage 8y ago
I don't get it. Why is this even controversial, let alone "fucking disgusting"? What exactly do you expect Google to do instead? As I see it, they have 3 options: 1. Give accusers the right to choose whether to relitigate cla
189.
by XCabbage 8y ago
That George Soros funded critics of Facebook. Or at least, that's what I interpreted the parent comment that I originally replied to as characterizing as a "conspiracy theory". I didn't see what else it could mean given
190.
by XCabbage 8y ago
> he hates Facebook > he's in their offices every week telling them how to attack Zuckerburg > you should ignore criticism of Facebook because it's just George Soros pulling the strings I didn't say any of these thin
191.
by XCabbage 8y ago
You... do realise that this article says that George Soros really IS funding Facebook's critics, right? > Color of Change is a not-for-profit civil rights organization. It receives some money from Soros It's remarkably bold to
192.
by XCabbage 8y ago
I'm not sure whether your confusion is genuine or feigned. If it's the former, then allow me to blow your mind by informing you that non-Californians exist and use the internet.
193.
by XCabbage 8y ago
No, I was entirely serious. In future, you may find that you persuade people better by actually presenting some relevant facts (as others have now done) rather than making assertions and then sneering at anyone who asks for an explanation.
194.
by XCabbage 8y ago
No, my response was very much meant an expression of skepticism at the idea that there was any connection between the piece and the Kochs. The comments here (that make clear that there is, at least, a loose connection that can be traced bet
195.
by XCabbage 8y ago
Thanks, that's useful information; I was unaware of the Cato-Koch connection. I'm not sure why the "Seriously?" is there or what I'm supposed to make of it. It seems to me that there's still a considerable gap
196.
by XCabbage 8y ago
Do you have any evidence for this you'd like to share, or do you just accuse any publications of libertarian viewpoints of being orchestrated by the Kochs?
197.
by XCabbage 8y ago
But Twitter isn't a private space to interact with your "social circle"; it's the public square, where political debates take place in full view of the world. The best real life analogue I can think of to replying with a
198.
by XCabbage 8y ago
I don't use Twitter or know quite how the blocking system currently works, so maybe I'm not getting it, but I think the proposal being discussed in the OP is changing the blocking mechanism from just being about you not seeing t
199.
by XCabbage 8y ago
tl;dr: if you run untrusted code from malicious actors, bad things will happen. Nothing new here.
200.
by XCabbage 8y ago
> But what about when the transition takes effect? JS doesn't know when a style is actually updated and can then have a new property overwriting it to make the transition happen. If you do properties too quickly the transition won&#
201.
by XCabbage 8y ago
Except that, realistically, most people aren't going to consult a lawyer or accountant for a small side project. I don't even really know how to hire a lawyer or accountant, or how to assess whether the person I pick is minimall
202.
by XCabbage 8y ago
You're assuming there would even be an array of callbacks if the code had been written in a different language, rather than the other language offering some nicer abstraction that eliminated the array. Having not seen the code, I can
203.
by XCabbage 8y ago
Asking as someone who's never touched Mercurial: how is Mercurial simpler? Looking at https://confluence.atlassian.com/get-started-with-bitbucket/... , the conceptual model looks almost identical, and so do the com
204.
by XCabbage 8y ago
Why should he have to? It's irrelevant to the point he's making, since a tool being conceptually difficult is not the same thing as it having footguns.
205.
by XCabbage 8y ago
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my comment that you're replying to. Nothing in it defends commenting on people's appearance or implies that I disagree with anything you've said here.
206.
by XCabbage 8y ago
The difference between the "hot" example and the "fat" example is not just switching some group labels around! The "hot" example is complimenting the recipient's appearance and expressing (presumably pleas
207.
by XCabbage 8y ago
> Imagine that 20% of founders were getting straight up scammed by fake angels and VCs--would you suggest the founders need some way to report that anonymously? I'd suggest that they should report it publicly , dammit, and name and
208.
by XCabbage 8y ago
I'm not sure what point you expect these examples to make. The second two are straightforward insults - which describing someone as "hot" is not - and the first one would be seen as completely harmless by many (perhaps most)
209.
by XCabbage 8y ago
I'm not even sure what he's trying to say, but if he means to imply that 2/3 US prison inmates are inside for drug offences, it's nonsense. The real number isn't even 15%. See https://fivethirtyeight.com&
210.
by XCabbage 8y ago
This is an absurd and unfair hit-job. Let me just spell out, for emphasis, what the article actually says: * Logging in to a Google service via its website will now automatically show you as logged in to Chrome in the top-right corner. This

More ›