tbrake

14 ms·

91.
by tbrake 10y ago
> "SED-A-GIVE?!" I genuinely think those are the three funniest syllables I've ever heard. The breathless incredulity at Igor's suggestion has always made me smile.
92.
by tbrake 10y ago
Whaa? They accept cards. They were exclusive to AmEx but they are now exclusive to Visa.
93.
by tbrake 10y ago
> (Also: the American practice of baring your teeth when smiling is often received as aggression.) This is patently ridiculous.
94.
by tbrake 10y ago
Not if you only give it one chance. Those are incredibly grim odds just for life - nevermind civilization, which would be rarer still - somehow arising. But aren't those chances constantly being created, on the scale of uncountable -il
95.
by tbrake 10y ago
"Fuck this other person because I don't want to fill out a form." I kind of feel laziness of that nature is its own kind of maliciousness.
96.
by tbrake 11y ago
> "Today, terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order." How can you utter that sentence and simultaneously not understand why your bill is effect
97.
by tbrake 11y ago
> The internet is not a different place to the real world In certain vague, slightly pointless ways (i.e. "it's just people doing things on a thing" ) they're exactly the same, sure. The specifics of what is possible
98.
by tbrake 11y ago
> Of course I'm familiar with it. Then there's no point in continuing this. No one's confused by what the headline meant, you've just purposefully read it in bad faith to shoehorn in your complaints about Chuck Norris
99.
by tbrake 11y ago
It doesn't suggest he does. You (edit: and the OP) may be unfamiliar with it but there's been an online mythologizing Chuck to be some kind of ultimate badass.[0] To say someone is the "Chuck Norris of X" is not to equat
100.
by tbrake 11y ago
Are click-bait titles a disease or a merely a symptom of a larger one?
101.
by tbrake 11y ago
> You see where this is going. Bob, Ted and you convene secretly and agree you won't poach each others employees or pay them more than $15/hr? And since you're the only game in town and can afford to undercut any competiti
102.
by tbrake 11y ago
And yet in chess the Carlsens, Nakamuras, Caruanas, Svidlers etc of the world still compete while knowing they have no chance of beating StockFish running on a modern desktop. The super GMs of the world - and basically all of the chess lovi
103.
by tbrake 11y ago
So - and I'm only halfway facetious here - an entropy tax? I wonder if it's useful or interesting to think about markets in terms of energy but confess to not having the economic or physics background to make it a reality.
104.
by tbrake 11y ago
New information is gained every day there isn't a ritual self-sacrifice. Start with the simplest scenario that his words imply and work up every day from there. One blue eyed person could look around, see only brown (or other color) ey
105.
by tbrake 11y ago
The puzzle does state he is fully believed. > One day, a blue-eyed foreigner visits to the island and wins the complete trust of the tribe. Why would it matter if he's a liar/truth teller in the classic island logic puzzle sens
106.
by tbrake 11y ago
I also quite like the banter blitz series from chess24. Svidler and Gustafsson are fun to watch and listen to. https://www.youtube.com/user/chess24media/playlists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv
107.
by tbrake 11y ago
These other goods you keep comparing it to definitely seem to fall more on the utility side as opposed to the entertainment - possibly art? intellectual?luxury? - side, which I think is a large distinction. There's a romantic aspect to
108.
by tbrake 11y ago
Right! It's low impact, high visibility. And the last line of the old post - "we _even cut out_ the sodas" - is a great soundbite. To borrow from the common criticism of the TSA - it's cost cutting theatre.
109.
by tbrake 11y ago
I've always liked the explanation given by __--__ [0] in a HN thread long ago on a Steve Blank post "The Elves Leave Middle Earth – Sodas Are No Longer Free"[1] about the same subject : > "I'm not management, but
110.
by tbrake 11y ago
I do normally agree with your posts but this seems ... distressingly principled, if you like :) If we adhere to the idea that "money is speech" (Buckley v Valeo) and resist all attempts at suppressing speech, how do we avoid an ev
111.
by tbrake 11y ago
> On the other hand you are just as likely to get a loan you otherwise wouldn't have because you haven't been seen with questionable folks. I would imagine the list of things that will count against you in those situations will
112.
by tbrake 11y ago
I'm trying to bring it back.
113.
by tbrake 11y ago
Can you explain what this means?
114.
by tbrake 11y ago
I noticed that too. I think a "Billing Zip/Postal Code" label would be clear enough.
115.
by tbrake 11y ago
Looks like it by the note in the other comment by serf. I had begun to wonder if certain values caused issues when used in code and it was deemed easier to just not get certain values back. That's crazy talk though.
116.
by tbrake 11y ago
Curious. Just eyeballing I see there's no 1, 2 and 222 are repeated as well as 36 and 136. There are probably more. If there's a purpose behind the table being constructed with those omissions/repetitions it's lost on me
117.
by tbrake 11y ago
> More than that, our industry values wicked smart young guys fresh out of university. I do wonder if most of their value comes not from their brains but from their pliability and capacity to be overworked?
118.
by tbrake 11y ago
FWIW I saw on /r/duolingo that French could be getting a new TTS soon http://i.imgur.com/haowkeG.png - for certain values of soon. edit: ah sorry, missed the August bit on the last line. Probably not the value of
119.
by tbrake 11y ago
That conflation doesn't exist very strongly in the article at all imo. The piece was about signals. Using the language and mimicking the dress of those acting as gatekeepers to send in-group signals that open doors/ease engagement
120.
by tbrake 11y ago
I was responding to a specific interpretation of OP's post which, upon reflection, might not have been the best reading. In short: are people convicted based solely on the presence of their DNA at a scene. The way I read it was if it w

More ›