Right. You don't look at skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. You choose from a pool of all. The best person for the job.
It's ironic that I get down voted in a discussion about true equality, for actually proposing true equality, by people proposing discrimination in an attempt to fight discrimination.
The reality is that we don't want true equality. All of these calls for 'diversity' are merely punitive. Meant to punish the majority for wrongs they never committed in the first place.
It's pretty telling when a company can come right out and say they only want to hire women, with an entire staff of women, and it's seen as 'diverse' (this doesn't even make sense)
I, for one, will never institute these policies in any of the companies I run. I will always pick the best person for the job.
What grandparent post is failing to understand is that we're part of the process. Our outrage was anticipated, and the system expects us to cry out when a bad law gets proposed.
Grandparent (me) feels that if the EFF is trying to fight massive corporations and lobbyists with blog posts -- and the end result is three posts an hour on HN -- then perhaps the EFF needs to reflect upon its strategy.
Also killing every bill that you don't like isn't a long-term strategy. They come back. They come back hidden. They come back stronger. They come back sleazier.
Killing bills that are not perfect (obstructionism) merely pumps up the pressure cooker. This is not the path to reasonable legislation.
Sometimes the path forward is to enact a bad bill then sue to set case law.
I don't see a lot of these nuances discussed during the quarterly "this kills the internet" fire drills. Perhaps you still find them exciting? I do not.
Other than your idea about the path forward, I completely agree. I too am exhausted by the EFF's constant "the sky is falling" attitude.
Their strategy probably works for funding reasons, but I wish a more moderate voice would pick up the net neutrality cause, so I'd finally have a place to send my money.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
This is about politics. It is off-topic. You can argue how the rules are written, but as they currently stand, this is off-topic, by definition.
I think you need to review the definition of the word "most", and then read the section on what is on-topic, as well. When you do, you'll realize that there is no black and white objective line, and that's by design.
You are wrong, because this comes up ALL THE TIME, and the simple answer is that it's not off-topic if enough HN members find it interesting enough to upvote.
It literally says, "politics is off-topic" in what you quoted.
That's very plainly not what it says.
Twisting the words around (when the direct quote is just a couple of centimeters above your reworked version, for all to see) doesn't exactly help your case, either.
BTW it's kind of weird you would claim that "politics is off-topic", when it only takes a few seconds to dig into your own comment history and pull up stuff like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11455942
Linux has never been very good for standard desktop use in the form presented by OS X and Windows. It's still a hobby OS, where your computer itself must become your hobby, rather than whatever it is you want to do on the computer.
I actually do wonder how many people refrained from using this mailing list because of the underwear color requirement, because I honestly suspect it to be literally zero, and would be fascinated by any other answer.
There's atleast 15% wiggle room on each journey, seeing as Uber takes 20% off the top. Aside from their expenses promoting and competing with other 'ride sharing' services I don't see where that cash is going.
What blows my mind is that someone like you can see a sample size of one (you), pull like 15 different levers, and then proceed to "know" which of the levers actually worked, and which levers would work for everyone else.
The sophilistic nature of your comment is astounding.
I wasn't really implying that everyone should start a ketogenic diet. Just stating the success that I've had with it, and also noting several common misconceptions that are still largely heard today.
I didn't say you were implying anything, what I said was I find it astounding how little actual data you seem to have collected, compared to the sweeping conclusions you're drawing.
I take issue with your condescending tone, because it doesn't fit whatsoever with your clear ignorance on the topic. I'm particularly sensitive to the topic of food, because people in your situation (who have found success but have no idea why) are immensely harmful to nutrition education.
Comments like yours are precisely why there are so many misconceptions out there.
I mean, it's just a comment on HN, I'm not writing a scientific journal article.
Everything I stated in the original comment is information I have gathered and learned about over the years. Most people haven't read any books about nutrition and how the body works, where I have done a lot of independent research. So I probably know a little bit more about this stuff than the average person. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any stretch, but I'm sure a lot of people on HN could find this information useful, and a good starting point for their own independent research.
And no, I can't site the sources directly, but if you have any specific points you'd like to point as being "errors", feel free to do so, as I'm sure others would be interested.
Like any internet forum, you can always put your opinion in. However you have seemed to only attack my comment, rather than providing any real retort.
Here are the reasons why I don't believe you should have written your comment:
* You falsely (implicitly) assert expertise on a topic (nutrition) to which you've had no actual training.
* You believe "just a comment on HN" doesn't deserve your full effort.
* You elevate yourself above the level of an ambiguous group of "others", without any evidence or actual reason for doing so.
* Your actual content comes without any citation or reasoning. You expect others to simply "take your word for it", or worse, do their own research, which you've given zero helpful information to help guide, other than random statements about nutrition.
* You overvalue your personal experience, while simultaneously undervaluing the research/experience/knowledge of others.
My contribution to this discussion is to point out to others your distinct lack of actual knowledge, despite your insistence on passing yourself off as an "expert"-- no, sorry, you said you're not an expert, just a guy who's "done a lot of independent research" (whatever that means).
I realize this comes off as harsh, but please realize, I don't know you, and am not making a value judgement of you as a person, just on what you've written here in the last hour or so. I'd bet you're not like this all the time, this just wasn't a very well thought out conversation.
Ya know "sophilistic nature of your comment is astounding", "astounding how little actual data", "your clear ignorance" isn't very HN guidelines. Bit unfair too - after all it's the top comment on this thread.
I mean... you literally can't legislate crypto, can you?
Could someone explain what this would look like, in a practical sense? Would self-signed keys become illegal, and all PKI would have to have a "government" parent key of some kind?
> If the company cannot meet this standard, it must offer “technical assistance as is necessary to obtain such information or data,” according to the draft.
Based on this it appears not. Here's how I imagine it going.
1. There's something the government wants that you've stored on some SaaS website like Dropbox.
2. But you've encrypted all of your files with your GPG key so Dropbox gives the gov't access to the files and then tells them that's all they can do.
3. Now the government needs your key so they raid your house and take your say, Dell laptop.
4. Now you use FDE and Secure Boot with a custom key so your device is locked tight.
5. The gov't then goes to Dell and demands that they use any exploit they know to unlock your device.
6. So long as you've chosen a good strong passphrase Dell will do their best but ultimately tell the gov't that there's nothing they can do.
They used to legislate crypto, so there's no reason they couldn't now. Back in the day, creating (and "exporting") an SSL library without a license was illegal.
If you're talking TLS, whomever holds the private key would have to use it to decrypt either stored or transmitted data and turn that data over to the feds. If you're talking PGP or something, then either the makers of PGP would have to put in a backdoor, or stop making it.
To implement this all the government would need is to send an NSL to anyone who creates, owns or operates any tool with encryption technology, or anyone who operates a network or service that encryption is going over.
More to the point, how would this and the 5th amendment interact if it was the end user that created a pass-phrase protected key which no one else knew?
Diversity is, on it's own, something that's been shown to improve decision making proficiency.
You should read the article, it does a very good job of outlining exactly how conclusive this finding is.
"The best person for the job", as you say, is the diverse pick.