The abundance of AMP links in Google search results, and how they purposely block actions, feels like some cheap SEO hack ala Experts Exchange in 07/08 or Quora.
> But this raises a deeper question: is your Average Joe Citizen (who is not an engineer, but maybe a barista, salesman, banker, etc) equipped to have an opinion about climate change at all?
This comes off pretty condescending. What makes an (assuming computer) engineer any more capable of reading & comprehending reports than a barista or banker?
You're right. I would edit my post since it's incorrect to imply an engineer would be any more capable in the example I chose. But apparently I can't any more.
That story is a perfect example of perception of a situation and how people view it in many ways. While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right.
As it turns out (Bari Weiss at the NYT viewed over 200 hours of footage) this did not happen. The man moved into the middle of the boys and stood very close to one of them. You can watch this from multiple angles and multiple cameras on YouTube and confirm this for yourself. David Brooks in the NYT also has an excellent summary: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/opinion/covington-march-f...
I am not disputing the moments before and during. There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off.
However my comment was about how that actual scene can be viewed differently by people, and is exactly what is happening. This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed, it's an interpretation of a real life event that took place. Too many people, the scene of 30-40 boys yelling and acting how they did invoked a sense of fear and intimidation to them. Too many others, it was just 'boys being boys'.
The other reason people are so miffed over this is because of the actual people in it and the narrative. For one, a boys family had the means to hire a PR firm to help with the ordeal (again, a place of privilege). And two, there is so much hand wringing over this boy and this event, but for some reason when many young men have been shot or hurt by cops it's often met with negative depictions of the person hurt. You can call this whataboutism all you want, but that's the reality of it. Why in this instance where a boy and his group of friends, that are clearing acting up and provoking others (not even touching the negative nature of their hats), are given a free ride as 'boys being boys' but yet we chastise people who get in trouble with cops? Aren't those same people "just being boys"?
> I am not disputing the moments before and during.
You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work.
> There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off.
Nobody is discussing whether there were "many problems".
We are debating whether children surrounded and intimidated an old man as reported by the Washington Post. We are doing so because WaPo was cited as an example of 'real news'.
That did not happen. WaPo was wrong.
> This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed
Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man?
You keep discussing unrelated issues without specifically answering whether you believe this happened or did not happen.
> You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work
I'm speaking to how some watched videos and felt they agreed with WaPo on the matter. There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events. This isn't a situation of clear cut and dry (like the recent released footage of the Chicago officer). It's people reacting to a situation and how it's making them feel.
> We are debating whether children surrounded and intimidated an old man as reported by the Washington Post. We are doing so because WaPo was cited as an example of 'real news'.
> That did not happen. WaPo was wrong.
Your statements are perfectly proving my point. To people that scene and moment gave them a sense of intimidation. You cannot tell them their feelings and interpretation of the situation is wrong. If I walk up to you and stand in your face, and you tell me that it made you feel intimidated I don't have the right to go "Stop, you're wrong".
> You keep discussing unrelated issues without specifically answering whether you believe this happened or did not happen
Im trying to explain to you why that particular situation is not something you can clearly point to as fake news. I'm trying to paint a larger picture to the whole matter and why many took issue with it.
Since you're so hung up on the matter, yes to me I viewed the way those kids acted as intimidating and inappropriate. If I saw that many kids in a group, wearing those hats, and chanting the way they did I would not want to be near it.
> Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not
The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him. That is right in the video, clear as day. That is very much a clear fact. What you seem intent on breaking down is whether or not this was seen as some form of intimidation tactic and I'm trying to explain to you that people can, and do, interpret personal encounters like that in varying ways.
You seem to be one who can't understand the way in which people are able to react and interpret actions of people different. You asked me my opinion of the situation and then proceeded to tell me that my perception of reality is wrong. I watch that video and I personally feel that they are being intimidating, how am I in a 'confused nature of reality'. I am watching people confront each other and reacting to the situation.
Your whole argument on this video boils down to "your personal feelings don't match mine, so you're wrong".
> > Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not
> The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him.
Did the boys surround and approach the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported?
Answer Y or N.
> > You seem genuinely confused about the nature of reality.
> how am I in a 'confused nature of reality'.
That is not the what I wrote. I've included the real quote above.
I say that you're confused about the nature of reality because you repeatedly say a documented fact is a matter of perception, and cannot say whether you believe it is true of false.
We are on Hacker News right now. If someone reported we were having this conversation on Ars Technica, that would be false. That is not a matter of perception or feeling. This is how facts work.
Do you the footage of the old man approaching the group of boys and standing very close to one of them is fake?
I honestly don't even know what you're arguing over anymore. You asked me questions, I answered them and offered context on my responses but yet you continue to tell me how I'm wrong.
Hi Dan. Acknowledged re: tit for tat, I did try and end it earlier as you can see but got lulled back when the other poster misquoted me.
I was being very cafeful to be civil though - even though this is difficult with someone who won't give a firm opinion on something. I succeeded in that.
You haven't said I was uncivil before either - we've had a few discussions about articles I've written that have been on HN and you once disliked me criticising the Bay Area.
Email is in my profile if you'd like to discuss further.
Keep in mind this is someone watching multiple videos that everyone, regardless of politics, agrees depicts something, and the person is saying they depict something else. "You seem genuinely confused about the nature of reality" is the most civil way I could have possibly said that.
Please don't do tedious tit-for-tit flamewars on HN. They're not interesting except to the two people who are tangling with each other, and even then not intellectually interesting.
Tropical Tidbits is a more US focused site with an emphasis on tropical storm season (hence the name) but they keep the models running & updating all year.
> you should prioritize end to end testing. Test the interface of what you're selling, not the inner workings.
E2E tests can be slow and extremely fragile though. They have a place and purpose, but they should not be the only form. Why would you skip entirely over "inner workings" tests that could catch bugs sooner?
The supply is much more limited for remote jobs so the pool is even smaller and the entry is higher.
Zapier goes over their hiring process (https://zapier.com/jobs/our-commitment-to-applicants/). It lines up with what I've experienced in that technical assessment is valued to the company, but more than anything they value ones ability to communicate and articulate in the interviews. So much of working remotely is trust and that is pulled out in different ways during the interviews.
Yeah, it's those that "pivoted to video". Mic was impacted, Univision struggled with Fusion, BuzzFeed walked it back, Verzion is obviously bailing on it, etc.
Even better are the ones that are keypads + smartlock. We'll probably be swapping over to one of the Yale locks which has a keypad & uses August's tech for the smart part.
