coolgeek

44 ms·

421.
by coolgeek 9y ago
Not disagreeing with you, but something about large corporations buying government officials to enact their preferred legislation doesn't sit right with me.
422.
by coolgeek 9y ago
> not some politician tl;dr No True Scotsman. > they aren't "both" sides but the same side wearing different masks, at that level I showed you irrefutable evidence that one side is pro consumer and one pro business. An
423.
by coolgeek 9y ago
I'll put Tom Wheeler (or any Democratic appointee) up against Ajit Pai, Michael Powell (or any other Republican appointee) any day when it comes to which side is more pro consumer and which is more pro big monopoly. > Part of the wa
424.
by coolgeek 9y ago
It appears that the link provided in the post is - wait for it - a splash page. Immediately below the image, the link to the actual article is to be found in "mavericks & heretics of science"
425.
by coolgeek 9y ago
The poster - "ignored ... a carefully worked out explanation" - doesn't (or doesn't care enough to) understand the company's established processes ("...or something") Given that s/he thus did
426.
by coolgeek 9y ago
> though I might have got into trouble with the Change Prevention Board for not using the right form or something... The "or something" and "which I ignored" aren't making you look like the reasonable actor in th
427.
by coolgeek 9y ago
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14388102
428.
by coolgeek 9y ago
> However, facts are only defined by the present state of knowledge one possesses. In other words, facts can change to conjecture with the introduction of new evidence. What you are alluding to here are not facts, they are hypotheses, gu
429.
by coolgeek 9y ago
> why should you "believe" in facts to begin with? I'm not really sure what you're asking here, especially since you put believe in quotes. Facts are - by definition - things that are true, indisputable, regardless of
430.
by coolgeek 9y ago
> but the true challenge is to identify your own biases and irrational worldviews You're right. But it's been my experience that the people who harp on this point are the same people who insist that: - there is no such thin
431.
by coolgeek 9y ago
> They're middle class, the same way I'm upper class nobility because I was awarded a college degree complete with a title of "Bachelor of CS" I have a very hard time believing that anybody believes this
432.
by coolgeek 9y ago
> What you linked to talks about Uber drivers (not Uber corporate) breaking the law What I linked to says "Uber sent emails to driver training them on avoiding detection (e.g. When at airport take down phone; have drivers sit up fro
433.
by coolgeek 9y ago
> For me, what Uber did is akin to avoiding roads that are known speed traps They operated in cities and other areas where they were explicitly prohibited from doing so. They camouflaged their activities (e.g. https://news.yco
434.
by coolgeek 10y ago
So, the software equivalent of soma?
435.
by coolgeek 10y ago
As someone with no experience in that region, and as someone whose taste is much more toward the satirical (Seinfeld, Family Guy, Simpsons), I have a hard time trying to recall anything satirical in KotH. Instead, I consider KotH to be simi
436.
by coolgeek 10y ago
Your profile notes: > Owner/ Founder: Making-The-Grade Private Learning (Private Tutoring Services). Your belief that there is nothing more to teaching than a lesson plan - "you could freely pick and choose from anyone in your
437.
by coolgeek 10y ago
Thanks for the list and links! But the term Overton Window isn't a good fit for what you're describing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
438.
by coolgeek 10y ago
It seems to me that you have the causation backward. Unions don't get established - especially in the last 20 years in the USA - unless working conditions and labor relations are already bad. There are literally enough books and schola
439.
by coolgeek 10y ago
The mission of NIH, EPA, NOAA and many others is science. Science seeks facts, not beliefs. These agencies only practice advocacy to the extent that it is 1) based on scientific fact finding, and 2) to the overall benefit of human health
440.
by coolgeek 10y ago
> We're at a point where the revolving door has become an expressway, Yes > and the connection has become so hardened, maybe (but probably not) > that the only option becomes to shut them down Not even close. The answer is to
441.
by coolgeek 10y ago
> I think it is very meaningful because it (loosely) implies that the present value of Tesla's profits (i.e. net profit after tax) is higher than Ford's. Even on a risk-weighted basis. Or, at least, that's roughly-kinda-so
442.
by coolgeek 10y ago
> It seems pretty clear that the whole vector of humanity is to functionally merge with our engineered system in a symbiotic way and then probably see the extinction of the human species in (relatively) short order As a transhumanist mys
443.
by coolgeek 10y ago
> You can also write while loops but I never do that At least 90% of all shell scripts I've written included a "while read line" loop
444.
by coolgeek 10y ago
> The solution is for affluent nations like the US to reduce its standard of living and cede more control to international bodies. We can debate the merits of the science all we want, but the solution put forward promotes a pre-determine
445.
by coolgeek 10y ago
Under what doctrine or reasoning can you compare the DWB hospital strike with My Lai or intentionally striking hospital ships as a matter of policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike#U.S....
446.
by coolgeek 10y ago
You're not trying to force your urine into substantial parts of the food chain. And you're not lobbying (paying off governments at state and federal levels) to prevent that from showing up on food labels. All of which Monsanto is
447.
by coolgeek 10y ago
Being built "today" doesn't have anything to do with it. Although they have better UI/aesthetics, from a UX perspective, Google and Amazon famously hew pretty closely to their original product design. What matters to the
448.
by coolgeek 10y ago
To clarify my reason for asking artursapek to explain - the tweet isn't a "hard and proven fact", it is a claim - albeit an implicit claim, but a claim nonetheless - as such, Politifact is evaluating the claim If art
449.
by coolgeek 10y ago
> didn't like that Trump took credit for a hard and proven fact Since you, yourself, note that Trump is trying to take credit for it, perhaps you should explain why their reasoning is wrong. "The national debt fluctuates up and
450.
by coolgeek 10y ago
Some info about criminal penalties under UTSA and DTSA here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret#United_States I think that DTSA may not hold here because it wasn't signed until the events occurred. I went

More ›