dimino

48 ms·

481.
by dimino 10y ago
> that has garnered praise by everyone from Snowden to filmmaker Laura Poitras The idiom "everyone from X to Y" is supposed to demonstrate breadth of support, where X and Y are very different sources, but Snowden and Poitras ar
482.
by dimino 10y ago
The only difference between this and what happens to you in NYC is you don't notice.
483.
by dimino 10y ago
For a 50 person group, $430 is peanuts, it's just peanuts. I'm sorry, I just don't feel for these people, this is getting upset about the $0.10 charge for butter when you paid $10.00 for the popcorn.
484.
by dimino 10y ago
No, it's not a fine line, it's a thick line that's visible miles away. You don't tell people you want to fuck them at work.
485.
by dimino 10y ago
This declares Agile dead without explaining specifically why . From what I gather, Agile is "dead" because no one actually does Agile, and only takes the "grab bag" of Agile terms without going fully Agile. If no one&#
486.
by dimino 10y ago
Your loose definition of "bumper lock" includes every single interaction any LEO has with anyone, anyone related to anyone else, and even anyone's lawyer, and is therefore worthless. This would be bumper lock if the FBI had
487.
by dimino 10y ago
> This implies, given the past and present behavior of law enforcement at all levels of government, "ending up in an interrogation room for several hours during repeated questioning attempts, before being dumped on the street somewh
488.
by dimino 10y ago
For those that don't know, "Bumper Lock" is following someone without being secretive about it, meant to induce stress. This isn't "bumper lock", she's never seen an FBI agent, no FBI agent has contacted
489.
by dimino 10y ago
Yes, and I'm asking what reasons you have for holding that opinion.
490.
by dimino 10y ago
Consolidating threads (for both our sanity): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11632516
491.
by dimino 10y ago
No it's not. Edit: To elaborate, Threat - A declaring of one's intention to cause harm or loss to another's person or property or to limit one's freedom to act in a lawful voluntary manner (a threat to kidnap). Harm to a
492.
by dimino 10y ago
I agree, however there wasn't a threat of implicit physical or social harm, and this reaction goes above and beyond "stress and worry".
493.
by dimino 10y ago
I don't think you know what harassment is then, if you think an FBI agent talking to you on the street is de facto harassment.
494.
by dimino 10y ago
My argument is that her panic attacks, when coupled with her other statements, indicate an unwell person, which undermines her credibility with regard to the seriousness of what the FBI agents are said to have done. According to you, the FB
495.
by dimino 10y ago
The wording is slightly vague, but "...a condition that necessarily requires treatment" means they are considered a condition, just not necessarily one that needs treating. Furthermore, your own quote goes on to indicate that
496.
by dimino 10y ago
My comment wasn't an analogy. I'm pointing out that everything has risk, and if your response is to have panic attacks, you are not reacting the way a healthy person reacts.
497.
by dimino 10y ago
It's hard to argue with productive results, however. If this "poking" results in valuable engineering more than SICP does, then "poking" needs to at least be seriously looked at and understood, if not outright taug
498.
by dimino 10y ago
Why do you think you know more than they do about this?
499.
by dimino 10y ago
Driving to work has a small but entirely real chance of resulting in personal (maybe not professional) harm.
500.
by dimino 10y ago
I am sorry you have panic attacks, but having panic attacks is not a healthy response to stress. Furthermore, this is not "constant harassment", or anywhere near the level of what the FBI did to Aaron Swartz. In addition, Aaron
501.
by dimino 10y ago
Being questioned by the FBI is not analogous to being shot in the head.
502.
by dimino 10y ago
DSVM 4/5 proposal[1], where it lists "Panic Attacks"/"Panic Disorder". A person is not healthy if they're responding to an event by having panic attacks. Before we go any further, do you believe a person c
503.
by dimino 10y ago
I don't think you know what harassment is then, if you think someone talking to you on the street is de facto harassment.
504.
by dimino 10y ago
You misunderstand. Her reaction to what you call harrassment is not the reaction a healthy person would have to the same treatment. To extend your analogy, this would be like a person losing a quart of blood over a pinprick.
505.
by dimino 10y ago
> I still planned to continue moving, of course, but now things would need to go to different places, and by different means. > I started having panic attacks, thinking that I’d need to get myself and literally every object, including
506.
by dimino 10y ago
Literally nothing you said in this comment is true. 1. There is not a preponderance of public evidence supporting your claim. 2. I am not assuming you're lying, I'm simply pointing out what you've said is useless. 3. You
507.
by dimino 10y ago
It doesn't, is the point that the folks who came up with SICP are trying to make.
508.
by dimino 10y ago
Can you also see how useless such a claim is to someone like me? How can I cite you in conversations or decisions in the future? If no one can use the information you provide in any meaningful way, what is the point of sharing the informa
509.
by dimino 10y ago
All of this is basically moot, because while the average person's entitlements might stay the same or increase due to a basic income to cover the things entitlements currently cover (we won't need to hand out food stamps if we hav
510.
by dimino 10y ago
What do your elf eyes see?

More ›