This statement is much more in line with Caldbeck's initial statement:
> Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There’s no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Binary released an updated statement in light of this new apology and indefinite leave.
First off, groping is very clearly not free speech. Next up, power dynamics matter. A random person hitting on you may be annoying. Your boss hitting on you and implying that you will lose your job unless you comply (or in this case, that you will lose funding) is coercion and also pretty clearly not okay.
Even if you're 100% okay with the remark you have to admit that it's a huge show of incompetence to make it at a meeting specifically about fixing Uber's sexist culture.
Sure, but the iron fish option is cheaper and just as effective. With the money they're saving but using ingots instead of whole skillets, they can solve other problems too.
When you turn battery saver on transition animations disappear (making everything feel less reponsive). The phone stops polling for updates as frequently. The screen dims. It's a noticeably worse experience because it does a lot to save battery. When I have plenty of battery or know that I'll be charging my phone soon I would much rather have all of those nice things than not. It's a tradeoff because the circumstances dictate how important saving battery is.
Specifically:
The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.
The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience. Whereas comments like "LOL!" or worse still, "That's retarded!" teach us nothing.
> I did admittedly miss the "nine months" portion of that, but that's still only one company out of many.
Yes, it's the company that owns Jeep. The company that has a demonstrated the security flaw. How different automakers responded to different security issues isn't related to this article or discussion.
> Also, note that my point - that auto makers mostly ignored Miller and Valasek, according to the article - would not include senators (unless said senators build cars, of course).
Senators may not build cars, but they can (and are trying to) force auto makers to take security seriously.
The argument in this comment chain has been whether this problem could get the attention it needed without such a dangerous publicity stunt. The fact that automaker and lawmakers were convinced to take action by less dangerous demonstrations shows that this stunt was not necessary.
"Second, Miller and Valasek have been sharing their research with Chrysler for nearly nine months, enabling the company to quietly release a patch ahead of the Black Hat conference."
"WIRED has learned that senators Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal plan to introduce an automotive security bill today to set new digital security standards for cars and trucks, first sparked when Markey took note of Miller and Valasek’s work in 2013."
Specifically, "Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs."
> Also also: you're building quite the straw man there. No one said the article was killing anything, illing anything, or making anyone cry.
jspthrowaway2 was paraphrasing other comments on this page. When this article was newer, all of the top comments where about how terrible the design is. Here are some direct quotes from other comments on this story:
> the fact that this person is trying to promote this exact idea makes me ill
> I'm crying. Why is this the #1 story? And how can a person with such a hideous looking site give design advice?
> We're supposed to take design advice from a site that looks like a car accident? No thanks.
His examples were not contrived, they were actual examples of times that mcpherrinm recently used X11 forwarding (unless you are claiming that he lied). If you want to say that his use cases are obscure, strange, or niche enough to not merit consideration, that's fine, but "contrived" doesn't mean any of those things.
Wikipedia is a good place for information about different data structures, but the question here is "What are the lesser known but cool data structures. There are tons of obscure data structures, but only a few that people would consider cool. Wikipedia cannot and should not show that information, because it's inherently subjective.
The administration itself set the bar for how "big" a problem needs to be to warrant a response. It's reasonable to want a response with some actual content.
I'm familiar with the Humble Indie Bundle, so I knew that Voxatron was some kind of game before clicking the link. After the link, I know nothing new. It could be a shooter, a platformer, a puzzle game, or anything else. There should be a brief description of the game in a prominent place on the page.