gretch

63 ms·

661.
by gretch 5y ago
I highly disagree with this. I think it's because of the asymmetry between how hard it is to create something and how easy it is to destroy something. For example, it takes a team of skilled people months to construct a house and 1 idi
662.
by gretch 5y ago
> In fact, due to gambling laws, these games have to publish exact probabilities. These pre-determined fixed odds make it such that the games support the opposite of your argument. If outcomes were independent probability then it would b
663.
by gretch 5y ago
But like is it actually keeping anyone safe? If we disabled that noise across the board, would ppl actually die from being backed into by big trucks?
664.
by gretch 5y ago
Probably Parent post’s point is that there are many levers that can be pulled to alleviate the problem, but that zero of the options are being acted on. Maybe it’s trivial to stack wood together, but apparently you can’t “easily build your
665.
by gretch 5y ago
> don’t suggest that money isn’t uniquely useful when put to the task I'm going to be completely honest with you - I just don't believe this, which was the point I was trying to make I think you are someone who is holding a ham
666.
by gretch 5y ago
You’re saying that having a lot of money helped you have a great body. That’s true of course but the relationship is also true in reverse. You can leverage a great body into making a lot of money. Great examples are Arnold or the Rock who b
667.
by gretch 5y ago
Arnold has a really good quote about this: "A well-built physique is a status symbol. It reflects you worked hard for it; no money can buy it. You cannot borrow it, you cannot inherit it, you cannot steal it. You cannot hold onto it wi
668.
by gretch 5y ago
I think you are setting the bar in the wrong place. For self driving cars to succeed, there just has to be a few good use cases where people prefer them to normal cars, and there's sufficient economic value to run a business. They do n
669.
by gretch 5y ago
They probably will never do that and there’s nothing wrong with it. Consider that airlines are a well established and reliable business worth trillions around the globe. And yet they also don’t take off or land in adverse weather conditions
670.
by gretch 5y ago
Well you didn’t. You persevered and then succeeded and no one had to make it easier for you. If you made it through O&S and don’t like the game, then I think it’s safe to say that it’s not the game for you. And that needs to be okay too
671.
by gretch 5y ago
You don’t have to farm levels. You just go do something else that naturally results in levels or loot making your character stronger. Since all of the game is wonderfully designed, it’s never a situation where you run off and “kill 10 bats”
672.
by gretch 5y ago
It’s not really “completely incongruous” though? Big haymaker swings deal massive damage. Or a jab/stomp from a gargantuan creature. Small/quick attacks from small creatures deal small damage. What’s the problem?
673.
by gretch 5y ago
What really? I feel like Palo Alto is on here all time given that it’s the cradle of a bazillion startups, home of Sandhill road, Stanford, and one time Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt had lunch in a sandwich shop casually there.
674.
by gretch 5y ago
Well it depends on where you live. If you live in California, okay what are you doing about it? "Knowing" about Ukraine does absolutely nothing - you know 'everything' and I know nothing we still have the exact same amou
675.
by gretch 5y ago
This is an arrogant amount of speculation based on nothing more than personal intuition. In fact, there are plenty of examples where public knowledge of safety is published by mandate of the government. Here is an example of FAA flight data
676.
by gretch 5y ago
There's a documented court case where a person was disallowed to be a police officer after scoring too HIGH on an intelligence/aptitude test: https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st..
677.
by gretch 5y ago
I would say something like: Wow, actually that feedback is quite surprising to me. I’ve been working hard on the project, and all the feedback I’ve gotten until now is that it was coming along nicely. A lot of the design decisions you point
678.
by gretch 5y ago
> We'd do native app downloads over the web and invest a ton of energy into security and privacy controls. This has been demonstrated to be false. This scenario is exactly what we used to have in the windows PC era and no one invest
679.
by gretch 5y ago
> Today if your phone fails, you can pop a sim in another phone and regain your phone service identity within minutes. No SIM, it could take days or even weeks. This doesn’t make any sense. Anything that can be done using a physical sim,
680.
by gretch 5y ago
This is why the anti-trust movements against FAANG have such a hard time gaining mainstream traction. People start hijacking the word “monopoly” and it becomes incredibly diluted and undermines the credibility of the narrative.
681.
by gretch 5y ago
I appreciate comedy, you're just not funny. You think comedy is just saying things that are false? Oh look, I'll just say the opposite of everything - haha wit!
682.
by gretch 5y ago
No it’s really not. This is hyperbole. Things are literally better now than ever before. More access to food, healthcare, and literacy on average for everyone in the world. More protection of basic human rights on average for everyone in th
683.
by gretch 5y ago
Consider that part of the expedition comes from “skipping the line”. Only 1 thing can skip the line at a time. If everything skips the line then nothing changes.
684.
by gretch 5y ago
There are too many hypotheticals to answer the question with any degree of accuracy. You are certainly not bound to keep claiming X though. I mean, there's such a thing as new information and research. If 10 years ago you claimed X, an
685.
by gretch 5y ago
IANAL either but final adjudication is more important that what anyone claimed in the course in the trial. If you claim X, but the court adjudicated that Not-X is true, then you can build off the fact that Not-X was adjudicated. It doesn’t
686.
by gretch 5y ago
Not everything that's stupid is harmful. It's fine if everyone is stupid, or most of us choose to engage in stupid things from time to time. I paid $17 to see Transformers. That was pretty stupid, but oh well, no one got hurt. Peo
687.
by gretch 5y ago
What? This is certainly [citation needed] I highly disagree that it's human nature to 'fuck as much as possible'. Certainly it is the goal of some humans. I can speak with personal experience that my nature isn't just to
688.
by gretch 5y ago
Not the original poster but I think they mean that the point of the law is to approximate morality and have it consistent across society. If a court could look at a situation and determine that it is evil, then what is the point of determin
689.
by gretch 5y ago
Why is it necessarily a disease and not a natural part of the human condition? It seems to me like if we were the sort of beings to say “this is enough”, we would have never made it out of hunter-gatherer.
690.
by gretch 5y ago
I mean, you are kinda flippantly dismissing my claim... do you disagree? You would rather be a serf? Today we have all of modern technology to help us - we have vaccines for debilitating diseases. If you break your leg, you don't just

More ›