Would you please be so kind as to update https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html to indicate 'ideological talking points' the staff believe prevent thoughtful & informative discussion?
Otherwise I feel that there's a loaded gun pointed at my head and any random statement is likely to set it off.
sctb, I honestly don't understand why you are threatening to ban me.
It's not an ideological talking point that people who die earlier due to health problems don't cost extra in pension funds. It's just a fact: if someone dies at 55, he won't cost a pension system which starts paying out at 65 a penny. fpgaminer posted much the same thing.
Nor, I think, was my aside about taxes being enforced with violence an ideological talking point: it's a fact that any law is ultimately enforced with violence. I honestly don't see how mentioning a social cost in the context of cost-benefit analyses could be considered a violation of any of the HN guidelines.
I'm not trying to derail or be argumentative; I'm honestly trying to understand how a fair moderator could threaten me with a ban for my comment.
I'm not arguing that they don't reduce health costs: I'm arguing that a) they increase other costs (e.g. old-age pensions, since people would live longer) and b) they are an unjust imposition of force in order to change private behaviour.
> Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs.
They also, of course, decrease other costs due to the deaths of the beneficiaries. Is that a net win or a net loss, financially speaking?
And are you so sure of your analysis that you would use violence to take your fellow citizens' money?
Our problem is the cities, and how they have many more people. Representation in proportion to population is pretty kick-ass if you live in New York.
It's a little less kick-ass if you live in North Dakota, and wonder why a few coastal congressmen are able to pass laws which interfere with your lifestyle.
More seriously, our problem is a metastasised federal government. Very little should actually be a federal issue (read the enumerated powers of the United States in the Constitution!), and yet almost everything now is. As a result, every issue becomes winner-take-all: the entire country must comply with me, or the entire country must comply with you. There's no room to allow Massachusetts to go wrong and right in its ways, and to allow North Dakota to go wrong and right in its ways.
I've had much the same experience that the Mr. Marshall describes with many aspects of Common Lisp: repeatedly, I'll discover that something which annoyed me (CLOS, packages, pathnames — whatever) is actually remarkably well-thought-out and pragmatically useful. It really is an amazing language.
No, no he didn't. None of the information he released revealed anything criminal whatsoever. All he did was violate his oath and the law, and for what?
> They won't consume a lot of public resources (no need of school or of police repression).
Either the host country's end-of-life medical care is not great by American standards (in which case what you write is true, but many Americans wouldn't care to move), or it is, and a retiree would consume considerable public resources. Unfortunately, there's no way to have it both ways.
Note that with the latest changes to Android, using mitmproxy to analyse the behaviour of apps has become impossible: apps refuse to accept personally-installed certificates.
In the future, we'll see less revelations about this sort of thing, not because it has become rarer but because Google have chosen a course of action which obscures it.
(it also breaks things like personal or corporate CAs, but that's a different problem)
I think a more properly-REST approach would be to PUT a representation of the resource with the action applied. That is, rather than POSTing to /resources/:id/close, one would PUT a closed version of the resource to /resources/:id.
Another problem is that people want an RPC mechanism, when what they need is a state-transfer mechanism.
It turns out that the semantics of RPC — attractive as they undeniably are — are pretty poor for building real-world distributed systems, while those of REST as a pretty good (or at least better) fit.
> Except that - unless you're on a tiling WM on Linux - your window manager sucks
Isn't the solution to that to not use systems with poor usability? Linux exists; it's capable of doing everything many (maybe most?) people need — why not just use the superior system?
> I can't really think of an essential daily app (minus work / minus business related / minus intensive reading) that I use which has better UI and UX on a tablet.
For me it's TV. While I own a TV, I essentially never use it. A tablet has more viewing area than a phone, which makes it much more pleasant to consume TV shows on.
I think you hit the nail on the head re. how well relatively recent tablets work. At first I thought a tablet would be like a phone — replaced annually — but I find that I've had the same tablet for four years. It does its job, it's a nice size (and Google haven't come out with another 7" tablet since!); why replace it?
> There's remarkably little evidence that terrorists are making routine use of strong encryption.
Even if they were, we Americans have a fundamental right to strong encryption, protected under the Second, Ninth & Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. I'd go further still, and argue that everyone in the world (who's not a prisoner or otherwise unfree) has a right to strong encryption.
Astigmatism and severe myopia. They're easily correctable, but without glasses I can't see more than about three inches from my nose. At normal viewing distances I simply cannot even see things other people can see, like letters, small animals or children &c.
Without glasses I'd be severely crippled. I've conducted a few experiments trying to move around in public without them, and it's beyond frightening.
Requiring ID to exercise the right to vote is no more 'needlessly restrictive' than requiring it to exercise the right to bear arms or the right to drink. Canada, Germany, Switzerland & the Netherlands are among the countries which require ID to vote, and none of those is a dark dystopia of voter restriction.
That's actually something I worry about. I'm blind without my glasses, seriously, debilitatingly blind. With them, of course, I have better-than-perfect (for some value of 'perfect') vision. Should I have children? Is it ethical to do so? I honestly don't know.
Otherwise I feel that there's a loaded gun pointed at my head and any random statement is likely to set it off.