HN is a (largely) community moderated content aggregation site. What if you don't have the benefit of a community to moderate? If you're an email service and want to stop bots from signing up and spamming the world at large, how would you do that?
Between twitter and google+, I'd say google+ is the one with mass appeal. It's simply better for what people call "social" - sharing updates, sharing photos/albums, chat/conversations etc all within their own private social group.
I think I wasn't clear enough there. Google+ is not more widely used than twitter NOW. There are a lot of people on Facebook who were formerly on Orkut, Myspace etc who've never had a twitter account and just don't GET twitter. If I had to pick the next facebook sized network, it would be Google+ and not twitter for that reason.
PS: I don't even believe the current growth/engagement numbers coming out of twitter entirely. There's a lot more spammy accounts there than used to be that put out hundreds of tweets a day and I wonder if that's heavily padding twitter's user growth currently. Most of my current followers are "fake". Same with my friends who aren't particularly famous. The statistics don't reflect this properly.
I remember seeing a study investigating the proportion of active accounts, vs. the number of dormant accounts. I think the study found that only about 20% of accounts were active. I can only imagine that the ratio of real accounts to automated accounts is far worse.
I also think that SV peeps use twitter at a far higher percentage than the real world, leading to very skewed perceptions.
Really? I know a lot of people around the world who use Twitter, ranging from notable authors to famous physicists to fashion designers to hockey sportswriters. G+ MIGHT get there but for now, I know far more variety of disciplines who actively use Twitter over G+ and Facebook.
Yes, this exactly. I desperately want to move from my Blackberry to an android phone but all the best phones seem keyboard-less. Typing on a touch screen is a major annoyance for anything more than typing a search string or sms.
According to eyewitnesses, Hasan had taken a seat at an empty table and bowed his head for several seconds when he suddenly stood up, shouted "Allahu Akbar!"
when an American (white Christiany) kills innocent CIVILIANS (whether American civilians in Colorado or Iraqi or Afghan civilians) he is not called a terrorist
but when an American (brown, Muslimy) kills SOLDIERS he is called a terrorist.
What is terrorism? Killing soldiers (who are trained to kill people) or killing civilians (who did not sign up for any murder and terror)?
Or is terrorism the act when non-white folks (Americans or otherwise) or non-Christians or non-Americans kill anyone? Apparently it's not called terrorism when Bush kills 1 million people or Obama kills Afghan women and children who are celebrating at weddings.
If you can't see the hypocrisy of the media then please ignore my post and move on. Is it a bigger crime to kill civilians or to kill soldiers? Is James the dozen-civilian-killer a terrorist or not? Media calls him a "suspect", why was the Fort Hood shooter not called a suspect while he was being investigated? Can't you see the pattern that if the murderers is a European / white American he is a "suspect" and if it's a brown American (like the Fort Hood killer) he is a "terrorist". Did you see the sympathetic posts about the person who went on a killing spree in Afghanistan? The poor guy had issues so we wanna consider that rather than call him a terrorist, how about the brown guys killing civilians, maybe they had issues? Maybe they had trauma from their folks being murdered or tortured? I am not justifying any crimes, I am only highlight how the media is justifying some crimes and calling other perpetrators terrorist from the get go.
>Obama trying to kill a terrorist and then accidentally killing civilians is not terrorism.
>It all comes down to intent, no?
Oh yeah, when we bomb wedding parties out intent is good, when they killed civilians their intent was bad, that was simple, now I get it.
Clinton knowingly bombed Sudan pharmaceuticals factory (I have posted the link somewhere on this page) and killed half million infants by sanctions alone (1996 UN estimate of the period 1991-1996), Bush knowingly went to Iraq when there was no link to any attack on US, Obama went into Libya for no good reason (oil contracts), Obama has killed hundreds of civilians in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan with unmanned drone attacks and his latest piece of art is to label all adult males present in the site where he wanted to bomb as "militants".
That's neat of Pres Obombya, Americans own the whole world; the Afghans, Somalis, Yemenis, Pakistanis just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so they are all terrorists. Let's kill them and call them militants unless proven otherwise (just imagine Osama using the same logic, oh there were bad guys in those buildings, the intent was to kill only those who were bombing Iraq).
I'm laying this one on the babies. Mommy handles them, they're all happy. Daddy tries something, suddenly they aren't as happy. Asshole babies!
</joke>
If the parents are worth so much, in my opinion they could both take time out for the kid. Is there a reason why women should take care of newborns full time? Yes, that's what is natural (meaning occurs in nature). Is there any reason her husband shouldn't help her? I don't really see one.
Even the most busy home makers get lots of time in the afternoon and in the late evening.
Besides if you don't have to worry about every tiny bit of financial demands, bills, expenses and you can just demand money and get it. And all you need to do is cook(Which is a great hobby by the way) and take care of kids. I'm all game.
In fact I would love to live a life where everything is other thing is taken care of, and all I have to do is house hold chores and get kids to do home work.
Merely imagining such a thing makes me feel like heaven compared to what I do to make a living. Its the most awesome life you can imagine. Tons of free time for hobbies, playing video games, reading or whatever.
If this is women's empowerment I'm all for it. Let them have all the freedom, responsibilities, work and let them earn all the money for the family and support it. I am ready to be oppressed for a couple of decades at home.
"Tons of free time for hobbies, playing video games, reading or whatever."
Well I certainly recommend having children, but I would never do so for someone wanting more free time..
But you don´t have to trust me (neither I want to be right, to each it´s own), just take care for a WHOLE weekend (with it´s 2 nights), of the toddlers of some friend or relative(if you are planning for a large family, please try at least taking care of 2 kids at the same time). They will be eternally grateful and you´ll have your little MVP.
Then you could decide with some hands-on experience, on the issue of kids and free time.
> Even the most busy home makers get lots of time in the afternoon and in the late evening.
Oh, that's the biggest load of horseshit I've seen here in a long time, and flat out false. You make a lot of unrealistic assumptions, and have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I swear, if you aren't trolling, then I can only imagine you grew up with some twisted idea of what normal is. Sheltered at the very least.
No, if what you say is what you honestly think happens, they you are either ignorant of reality of simply a twisted person.
I'm going to side with the ignorant part.
> In fact I would love to live a life where everything is other thing is taken care of, and all I have to do is house hold chores and get kids to do home work.
I just have to keep reminding myself that you are ignorant of reality.
> I am ready to be oppressed for a couple of decades at home.
Icing on the cake. Do you honestly believe this tripe you are spewing?
> And I was not the kind of kid who troubled my parents much. I used to keep pretty much to myself as a kid.
Maybe that explains your attitude? Either way, it means nothing.
> I might be wrong,
You are. You are wrong in the sense that an effective way to make a political statement is to crash a few planes into some buildings.
> Besides you haven't given me a single reason as to why I'm wrong.
You've given no reasons to back up your claim, which flies in the face of common sense. So sorry, I just cannot stoop to that level of ignorance. Good parenting takes effort.
Oh, sure. You are right, bad parenting means you get lots of free time. If that's what you are referring to, being a bad parent, sure. Is that what you were talking about?
> Your post seems like a rant out of some frustration in your life.
And your comments seem to come from someone who was treated like you suggest growing up. We generally refer to that as neglect.
And, what if your wife also works? What if she makes, gasp, more money than you?
You know, that's actually a thing, at least in a lot of industrialized countries that allow their female citizens to, you know, vote and learn stuff and drive cars.
Actually you know what all of your talk sounds like? It sounds exactly like someone who hasn't done any of that for more than an hour or two.
There is nothing to gasp about wife making more money. In fact more the better.
Although I agree with you I don't have much experience parenting and staying at home. But just merely comparing job profiles shows a huge comparative advantage. And you don't have to actually experience it to know that.
> Is there a reason why women should take care of newborns full time? Yes, that's what is natural (meaning occurs in nature).
A lot of things happen in nature. But is there a reason a women is required to raise an offspring? Apart from breast-milk, there isn't anything a man can't do.
> Is there any reason her husband shouldn't help her? I don't really see one.
No reason at all. I am more interested in parent's comment about woman required to take care of babies. Let alone helping, I don't see a reason why a man can't raise a baby all by himself.
And this is the whole problem with taking a rational approach to something you know nothing about - you get the wrong answers because you are acting on the wrong information. As pointed out by param, there is a mountain of research on this subject which clearly indicates that a mother is essential to a child's development. A growing body of research shows that a present father is also very important. Nonetheless, we are adapted to the condition of the mother being present during our development, therefore it holds more weight than the father being present. Both parents being present improves things futher.
