hsod

16 ms·

91.
by hsod 9y ago
You sure? I believe he intentionally did not put in scene breaks but regular old fast-forward still worked. If you're right, it's an interesting example of "artistic" DRM that is not related to copyright enforcement. C
92.
by hsod 9y ago
> The other rotation is for one of my dev-team's software, and I'm hardly ever paged - like once or twice a year max. I'm in an on-call rotation (not at AMZ) where I hardly ever get paged, and it's cold comfort. I sti
93.
by hsod 9y ago
The "liberal hysteria" narrative, like the "Russian brainwash" narrative, is a "thought-terminating cliche". Perhaps Twitter, in a non-hysterical manner, decided that due to the strong evidence of a Russian inf
94.
by hsod 9y ago
> Free speech doesn't include illegal content Isn't that kind of begging the question? "Illegal content" is just a bunch of types of expression that the government has decided to ban. They are all exceptions to free s
95.
by hsod 9y ago
Can you go into some more detail on how BLM "advocates, tolerates, or embraces" violence?
96.
by hsod 9y ago
Note that this user appears to work for the company which makes this product
97.
by hsod 9y ago
How much do you pay for the train every month?
98.
by hsod 9y ago
I read the whole thread, thanks. I'm pointing out that your support of only speech that is currently considered lawful (and by implication, your support of restrictions on free speech that are currently codified into US law) means you
99.
by hsod 9y ago
You just listed off a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that you support, so I'm not sure where you're standing here. Is it your contention that the current collective US jurisprudence on free speech restrictions represents th
100.
Voter Suppression in Wisconsin(motherjones.com)
21 points by hsod 9y ago|5 comments
101.
by hsod 9y ago
The first day or two of what?
102.
by hsod 9y ago
Whence this assumption that FB and Google are politically neutral? https://www.recode.net/2017/4/21/15384416/facebook-google-dc...
103.
by hsod 9y ago
I've noticed a TON of conversation on HN lately about how emotional/hysterical anti-Trump people are. Aside from the obvious fallacy (being emotional doesn't make you wrong), I think it's part of the anti-anti-Trump phen
104.
by hsod 9y ago
I don't think anyone, myself included, knows how to quantify the risk of something terrible happening due to Trump's unprecedented Presidential demeanor and the associated erosion of institutions and norms. It's quite likely
105.
by hsod 9y ago
The attitude that political viewpoints should be protected from criticism seems to be very common among right wingers lately.
106.
by hsod 9y ago
I think Russia interfered in the election, but I don't think Trump is an "illegitimate president". There's no such thing, constitutionally speaking. He won, that's a simple fact. He is the President. Just wanted to
107.
by hsod 9y ago
You state this as an absolute, but taken to it's conclusion it seems to be arguing that no one should attempt to influence the vote of anyone else. I see nothing undemocratic about examining the ways in which voters receive information
108.
by hsod 9y ago
Thank you for these posts. I have struggled to make this point many times and have never seen it communicated so clearly and neutrally.
109.
by hsod 9y ago
Probably because he's not really sorry. It's not like he did anything horrible here. This is a Public Relations problem, not a moral problem, so you get a Public Relations apology.
110.
by hsod 9y ago
Well, if you say so...
111.
by hsod 9y ago
I've never seen a formal debate like this, but I'm surprised this kind of stuff is encouraged. It seems kind of dumb to me. If they're just making stuff up, can't you just make stuff up back? "Oh actually it's
112.
by hsod 9y ago
Can you cite any evidence or well-reasoned analysis to support this conjecture? The piece linked in the comment you replied to lays out a pretty rigorous case to the contrary.
113.
by hsod 9y ago
Why? The point is the same. One need not be an expert on something to come to a justified believe that it does more harm than good. One of the consequences of your argument is that the only opinions that matter in the gun debate are those o
114.
by hsod 9y ago
> Similarly, I don't believe that people who've never fired, cleaned, trained others, and owned firearms to have useful opinions on those tools. I don't think that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
115.
by hsod 9y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't agree with you that our current gun situation is worth it as insurance against tyranny, but I can at least understand where you're coming from. I think your "gun-ignorant" argu
116.
by hsod 9y ago
If they are paid to comment on behalf of or in opposition to a particular candidate, it's (probably) a violation of campaign finance laws. I don't think anyone is arguing that a Russian with a personal interest in American politic
117.
by hsod 9y ago
It's not just one post, it's lots of posts, all over the place, every day, for months. It's not hard for me to imagine how a well-funded campaign could subtly warp someone's perception of reality.
118.
by hsod 9y ago
This comment coyly hints at arguments but doesn't make any. Why is extreme caution and conservatism the order of the day? What history of gun control and political situation are you referring to? Why do you think this isn't as ter
119.
by hsod 9y ago
Net neutrality was dead the moment Trump won the election. Pai was specifically chosen in order to repeal it. Public comments and hearings and reports are all theater. If we wanted Net Neutrality to stick around, we shouldn't have elec
120.
by hsod 9y ago
I feel like we're talking past each other. Personalization of search results is orthogonal to this article and discussion so I'm going to pass on responding to your points there. As for PageRank, I really appreciate the Wikipedia

More ›