Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | zwerdlds's comments login

But... Your comment was an anecdote too?


safety arguments need to be statistical in nature

there's no such thing as perfect safety


Just make sure to keep an eye on your monthly statement. AT&T will arbitrarily decide that you should upgrade your plan and charge you more for it - despite your previous plan being perfectly within your usage.


Agreed. At what price do you think cruises internalize the externalized costs?


How do you even TRUST the leadership and that point?

I've been in this situation before, and the ideas in my head are basically paranoia. How do I trust that my manager isn't going to throw me under the bus in the next project? How would I EVEN KNOW?


Check his 2nd question on this site. https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/183956/what-is...

This shows even more worrying imbecils as his managers. He should leave now!


Will Cruise be taking centralized responsibility for the issues here? Will the person who caused the initial accident be held responsible?

I think it's very worthwhile to think of the overall improvements to safety while still acknowledging the arbitrage a corporation brings.



Just imagine if all $14000000000 of that went to the CEO & boards pockets and not just 29% of it. I'd expect less of these "well they saved lives" compliments for grift


Sounds like the most effective $1.4b the government has ever spent, $ per $.


Vore is just a latin root relating to eating. Vorarephilia is just one use of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vore


In common speech it's never used alone, but only as, as you said, a root, e.g. carnivore, omnivore. Just vore alone I've only ever heard to mean exactly one thing, and it's the NSFW one.


Pedo is Just a Greek prefix meaning child. And using it as a name for a project is an equally horrible idea.


My pedometer says otherwise


Different root word (pedi- means foot by way of Latin, and shouldn't be confused with Latin words like pedicare [provocative/aggressive verb meaning 'to buttfuck' (usually bowdlerized as something like 'to bugger')] which are also derived from the Greek pedo-)


Growing up, on the playground, you said, "actually what you just said is a symbol of power of the Roman consuls, so I will take that as a compliment.", didn't you?


> Apple have never bet such a huge chunk of their spending on a single tech that has been so resoundingly mocked.

I guess the 90's don't count anymore.


I mean...not really?

It's not particularly helpful to think of Apple before Jobs' return as iCEO and Apple afterward as the same company. His leadership philosophy and his vision for the company were so completely different than Gil Amelio and his fellow suits, any attempt to draw conclusions based on things that happened during that period is going to be an exercise in futility.

Unless, of course, all you want to do is score points dunking on Apple. Which has been a beloved pastime of many tech people for about 40 years now.


Apple in the 90s didn’t net itself on a single product.

Apple bet on a ton of products. Then they almost all failed to generate good returns, whether good, bad or average.


And yet no thought is given to broadcasting a thought to thousands or millions of people simultaneously. You're right, by the way, nobody should be put on trial for minor transgressions like this, but in a humane world, they wouldn't happen either.

also, FTA, it appears they did ask for an apology, which they apparently didn't get. Another thing interactions on the internet make very hard, is that owning your transgressions when you're wrong has very little utility as the other person is easy to objectify.


They did get some very sincere apologies


I see that Steve Klabnik an Corey Haines apologized on their blogs, and you're right that I was wrong there. The reason I wrote that was in the article it says "I queried some tweeters for more information on why exactly it was so bothersome. I didn’t get apologies from these tweeters."

I do want to point out that if you complain about someone in a medium, it's reasonable to expect the apology or explanation there. If someone is a jerk in front of other people to you, they should clarify their behavior in front of everyone, not just a direct, personal apology.

This is kind of my point - I'm not a neurologist or social scientist, but, in my opinion, we humans don't seem well equipped to deal with the group sizes the internet makes available. I think it's totally valid to point out that the problem here isn't really the individual behavior per-se, it's the behavior in the context of 10k others. In the blink of an eye, we've made it possible for virtually everyone to reach an enormous amount of people, so easily, and with so little oversight, that it falls on those people to take responsibility for engaging with the platform in the first place.


If it's reasonable for a 12yo to be able to play in a for-money tourney, then I don't think it's unreasonable to think they should know the difference between right and wrong.


As a parent of a now 13 year old - it is not reasonable for a 12 year old to play a for money tournament. 12 year olds may "know right from wrong" in some sense, but they do not have adult brains. Expecting them to make decisions like an adult, or understand "right and wrong" the same way an adult does, is ludicrous.

This is equally true of a 19 year old.


Then why should they be able to win money off adults?

Classic "have your cake and eat it too". If you want to play in tournaments with adult prizes then you should expect adult consequences for misbehavior.


They shouldn't be able to. But either way, kids don't have adult brains, and there's nothing anyone can do about that. They are physically different. You can't expect a 12 year old to dunk a basketball, and you can't expect a 12 year old to think like an adult.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: