These polls are self selecting. People round here aren’t into polls generally (evidenced by that the feature is largely unknown) and probably rarely respond to them. An exception to that is when the poll positives speak directly to something you care deeply about and identify strongly with. On top of that people who are going through this may be inclined to share not least because it’s always comforting to those going through an issue to know that they aren’t alone.
In sum, this poll is more an opportunity to share and participate in discussion about this issue than it is about determining the proportion of hn readers who are dealing with this issue
I did my part: I read the article. I still have zero clue as to how evaluate whether any particular call will warrant this new or the previous, alternative approach.
I didn’t see the actual study but wonder how much this actually speaks to the likelihood of a new marriage staying whole. The graph states that the figure is x divorces per thousand marriages so far so good. But they also say that the rate of marriages is also declining which seems to indicate that the proportion of old marriages to new marriages per thousand is rising in which case at least some of the divorce rate decline may be because a survivor bias embedded in the older marriages?
1 and 2 are either your largest groups or at least very large groups.
Getting addicts ‘clean’ is a sub problem at least almost as hard as the general, and it’s somewhere between hard and impossible to keep someone in a rehab or a mental facility against their will, and I doubt Reagan is to blame for that.
Basically, a large proportion of 1 and 2 are effectively in camp 4.
Interesting, I thought YC provides a lot of coaching for the business side of things they messed up on. I vaguely recall reading against all those practices in YC related blogging.
I guess they aren’t too heavy handed about it.
Also the coding on the floor thing, wow.
But after all is said and done, major props for getting to be a YC startup to begin with!
The title of article is so misleading it’s almost a lie:
>But the bank is now reportedly keen to shed its last connection to the president: three loans, totaling about $340 million, personally guaranteed by the president and taken against the value of his properties. The loans are said to start becoming due for repayment in two years.
>The three officials told Reuters that bank executives were not concerned about the president's capacity to repay the loans, partly because of the time left before they are due.
“Could seize assets...” for business loans, the payments for which start becoming due in 2 years, and that the article does not claim are in any doubt...
I find the title of this submission profoundly disturbing and unworthy of this platform. To me “Scientists believe...” implies a lot more than what this article describes.
I had a gold watch, a family heirloom, that I had repaired. It was missing the buckle. The jeweler, a large one, sent it off to a 3rd party and it came back smaller around the wrist...
I was naive but I couldn’t conceive of that happening, going through a legitimate and large jewelry business.
Interesting theory. And indeed, it is just. But On its face it negates the validity of any drive by scroll down to accept contract, but I believe they are binding to some extent at least. Maybe the scroll down click is considered at tacit acceptance of what’s inside.
Wow this that story where the dude said he thought the other guy was wrong. And this is their response to their handling of it.
They weren’t sure if there was a violation but responded to a couple complaints by bringing this guy in front of a committee of sorts to get to the bottom of it and are now investigating their process to ensure a better process
What a torrential tempest in the tiniest of teapots, sometime you can take yourself too seriously.
For the younger among us there was a time when you could organize a conference or group or project without conjuring a set of rules governing social interactions, and establishing processes for the addressing of rule violations and appealing said addressing.
There’s nothing to be done about it. If people enjoy being treated and treating everyone like babies then it is what it is.
This is a case for the courts. The article is completely one sided, and there’s no way to know whether or not some or much or most of the merchandise was counterfeit.
He does admit to ignoring up to 11 notices that his inventory would be destroyed if left unclaimed. He mentions conflicting dates for the notices but we’ve no way of knowing to make of that.
I don’t know what to say other that I read the piece with some interest and for all know it’s a work of fiction, but heh I clicked.