It doesn’t really have anything to do with HN. It’s anyone who cares about the truth.
Stuff that sounds believable because it “sounded good” and was argued by charismatic people plagued medicine until shockingly recently.
It’s human nature to believe people and your snarky reply is evidence of that. Your gut reaction should be to agree with the comment or call out the author for fabricating stuff, not to dismiss intellectual rigor.
From the author, it's a newsletter on what she's thinking. I didn't see any advertising of shoddy medicine or claims of being scientific. Do we call out authors for writing poetry on the human experience? Why should we apply intellectual rigor on some observations made by an artist?
"Two households, both alike in dignity," he says, with the confidence of a man who’s never run a census.
We are given no confidence interval, no error bars, not even a passing nod to the broader Veronese housing market. Two? Why not three? Why not seven?
Dignity, too, goes unmeasured. Are we talking patrician gravitas or the brittle self-importance of guys who name their swords? The line presumes a convenient symmetry where there is almost certainly chaos, over-leveraged family fortunes, and at least one uncle squatting in a basilica basement.
Frankly, I suspect "two households" is just the number Shakespeare could hold in his head without dropping his drink.
"call out" as a metaphor doesn't apply to the discussing of a online newsletter on a separate site; neither the author nor other readers are likely to be aware of the discussion. It does seem very apt, if poetry were posted here that makes claims about the human experience, for commenters to dispute those claims.
At the time of writing, three of the four existing replies showed no indication of understanding your point xweb; the fourth one having been made unavailable via flagging (but one can guess from context that it too didn't understand).
Please leave this gender war stuff to lesser mediums like X and Tiktok.
HN is following the standard principle that was true on the internet before pictographic avatars of real people became popular; that we are all who we choose to be online. “Nobody knows you are a dog” etc.
There are a few people who have tried to bring identity politics to HN over the years but it is unscientific to claim this bias without evidence regardless of anything else.
Interesting that you are critiquing a woman for making observations without evidence, then you yourself make an observation without evidence. It couldn't be a double standard, could it?
> it is unscientific to claim this bias without evidence
We have ample evidence that almost everyone is sexist. Assuming that this doesn't apply to people on Hacker News is rather odd.
My first computer as well! I remember typing game code from a magazine and saving it to the cassette tape. My big Christmas present the next year was the giant expansion box with the floppy drive.
Same here, I'm in the TI-99 as first computer club as well.
98% of what I did on it was just play cartridge games, but I did have a year or so of trying to type in Basic programs from library magazines. None of them ever came close to working since they were never for TI's weird dialect of Basic and I didn't know anything about the differences. Mostly what I did was CALL COLOR instructions for some pretty colors. I think the furthest I ever got with Basic was the "higher/lower" guess-the-number game. Eventually then we got a Tandy 1000 with GW-Basic and I moved on to that.
I didn't really get into Parsec. Tombstone City was my jam. And then I bought the Editor / Assembler package and it came with the source for Tombstone City as an example. It turns out the algorithm for figuring out which tumbleweed was going to turn into a monster was very simple. Reading that one bit of the source, I was able to predict where the bad guys would spawn and be ready for them. After that I could flip the counter and pretty much play as long as I wanted on two or three lives.
I figured that out just from playing Tombstone City. It's the first paired cactus by scanning the board in reading order (each row from the top, left-to-right.) (You mean a cactus that turns into a monster, not a tumbleweed.) And yes, once you know that, the game is pretty easy when you can anticipate every threat. I remember being able to go for at least a couple hours in one game; don't remember if I ever rolled it over or got bored before that.
Second this. This product sounds amazing. But hard to believe it without seeing it. What can you charge for that enterprises/funded entities would pay for, but side projects wouldn’t need until they start making money. Like: Electron, Oracle/SQL Server support, Exchange integration, etc. Good luck! As someone who has been “working” on a SaaS project for a year, would love to try this. But can’t shell out $400 out of pocket for something I can’t touch.
Well. This article conflates three different complaints as one problem. That their browser supposedly mitigates. There are good articles about the open web vs closed for-profit ecosystems. This is not one of those articles.
Maybe this should be an "Ask HN" - but what do you think about the VPNs mentioned in this article and the use cases described? I also have researched VPNs and basically threw in the towel...gave up...how can you possibly know if you can trust ANY VPN provider?
https://thatoneprivacysite.net/ seems objective, but it is infrequently updated and insufficiently comprehensive, not to mention a bit of a usability nightmare.
There is also the factor that different users have different use cases. A VPN that is perfect for Glenn Greenwald may not be what Joe Schmoe who just wants to hide his porn habit from his ISP needs. It does feel like the market could use some way to figure out which VPNs can be trusted.
So, the questions are:
- What is your VPN of choice?
- How did you choose your VPN?
- Do you trust your VPN?
- And how could you objectively trust your VPN? What would give you that feeling of security?
> how can you possibly know if you can trust ANY VPN provider?
There needs to be an independent auditor who can establish standards and certify which VPNs comply with them and which do not, in much the same way that UL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization)) certification on an electrical product means you can be reasonably confident it won't burn your house down.
Key point for this discussion: "In 1993, New South Wales, Australia, commissioned a study to see if a new helmet law for children was increasing helmet uptake. It did—but the researchers also found 30 percent fewer children were riding to school. In New Zealand, where helmet compulsion was introduced in 1994, the number of overall bike trips fell 51 percent between 1989–90 and 2003–6, according to one research paper."
"Meanwhile, it seems that bicyclists wearing helmets may encourage riskier driving by motorists."
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating against wearing a helmet if you DO commute on a bike. As someone who fifteen years ago cracked a helmet instead of his head after falling on some jagged pavement, I appreciate what a helmet can do for you. And there may be statistical support for wearing a bike helmet as well:
I found this a strange decision in the Grid standard design. Surely most people* would think more in terms of "cells" that "cell-dividing-lines". Then again, compared to the design decisions in much of the rest of CSS including every other standard layout mechanism this is a fairly small gripe, overall CSS Grid is a big improvement. And when using the excellent "grid-template-areas" (compared to ASCII art elsewhere in this thread) you don't really specify start and end points anyway.
* By people, I mean designers (used to bootstrap-style grids), coders (used to arrays) and everyone else (used to spreadsheets).
But in this case you have 1,2,3,4,5 and start 1 end 4 selects 1,2,3. So it appears inclusive 1, exclusive on the 4 to me. If it were like some instances of substring where it is (index, count), I could get that, but it almost reads as "start right here, end right before this."
Actually, wait. Thought on your line numbers a bit and I'm thinking that points to each vertical line as a number (so in this garden's case, 6 per row). I just plugged it in as that and it follows. Just feels foreign to me as I'd do start/end 1 for just first cell, start 1 end 2 first two cells, etc. I'll get accustomed to it though. I wonder if there are other scenarios that followed the same logic in CSS that I just didn't attempt to really grok. Thanks for pointing it out.
