It would be probably be more respectful if you would not mess with my posts, now even I do not know who made said comment. Guess I should start signing my posts and keep backups of them.
People sometimes have important personal reasons for deleting things but this does not mean anything. It is not as if "x posted y on twitter and deleted it afterwards" or "the page was edited/deleted, here is an archive.org link" is uncommon on HN, nor it is as if a stalker would not be able to scrap HN posts of someone instantly as they were posted.
> it disappears.
In my experience they show as [deleted] but I guess this is only for posts that have replies.
Is the passport number supposed to be secret? You show them when you buy alcohol in some countries as well to the police if they ask for it - all of these people can copy the number if they so wish.
If she could not do the job then she should have resigned.
Edit: there was another post by [redacted] but it disappeared, it does not even show as deleted, weird.
It said: "This isn't some ride along in a consumer grade EV. They were gathering data to program the car with. The emergency braking systems were not active. The person that was supposed to be monitoring the vehicle knew this."
It certainly is free. The standards are generally backwards compatible and the changes are simple. You do not even need to be aware about the differences between C89 and C11 to contribute to a C11 project.
> or because the toolchain they use elsewhere (personal projects, embedded comes to mind, or work) hasn't updated to the new standard.
I fail to see how focusing on the americas "it hurt democratic movements in third world countries". Are you saying that it would have been better if they never published anything?
I would certainly like it if the published absolutely everything that they had (in fact, I would argue that not publishing them would be unethical unless if they use said information as an insurance in order to make sure that for example Assange gets free) but I would not go as far as to claim that they did any harm.
I do not understand. Why would him being pro-trump affect your sympathy regarding his prosecution due to revealing the Iraq war crimes? Surely it is possible to stand against unfair prosecution of people while also disagreeing with their personal opinions and beliefs. It is not like this court is trying to decide whether he is guilty of rape or not.
(note: I do not know whether Assange is pro-trump or not so I will take pjc50's word for it - seems weird though as Trump has been holding an anti-whistleblower position)
(note2: The allegations were not regarding rape but rather of intentionally breaking the condom while having an otherwise consensual sexual encounter - fun fact, this is legal in California although I personally think that it should not be)
Scientists are people too. You often see people hiding their real beliefs due to the fear of retaliation and public perception as well as misinterpretation regarding controversial topics, it is only natural that scientists have the same fear, especially when considering this case where we have a highly political topic.
Just like the Internet Watch Foundation. Being a private charity does not mean much for the UK.