I get those emails. It's too bad the reply-to email address never works. I've tried a couple of times to let them know that it'd be hilarious if they shared my porn watching habits with my friends and family and that to explain that I'd like a copy of any of the videos they supposedly took of me.

I don't present myself as something other than what I am. So, they can't really blackmail me. Life's easier when I don't do anything I'm ashamed of.

A closer alternative is 'ocenaudio'.

https://www.ocenaudio.com/en/

It's not even open source.

I'd like a sky burial in Tibet, but that ain't gonna happen (at least not legally) unless things change.

It can be done in India in some places if you convert toa Zoroastrian.

Vultures are endangered in India. The Towers of Silence are having trouble dealing with bodies.

Paying your respects to the vultures? That is quite romantic.

You could move to Tibet in order to have it eventually, though.

You would be dead and wouldn't be able to enjoy it.

You may want to see this:

https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/...

I stand corrected. Thanks for this.

I used to think the same thing, until I read an article that made me look into it. The article I read was a local affair that pointed out that inmates are encouraged (in my state, Maine) to file absentee ballots in the town they lived in prior to incarceration.

There are just a couple of states that allow that, but I learned that quite a few jurisdictions restore rights after incarceration, after probation, etc...

I think they might be one of those 'free-market' types, with a whiff of Ayn Rand. I read a number of their other comments.

I am not answering for them, merely observing a trend.

I'm definitely on the side that favors heavy market regulation. History shows us that it works better with heavy regulations - that is that it works better for more people rather than better for a small group of people. In the US, something like 52% (the last time I read some numbers) have invested in the stock market. I'd rather they be treated fairly, with a more equal playing field.

Hmm... It looks like it's now 53%:

https://usafacts.org/articles/what-percentage-of-americans-o...

The sticky stuff on the bat shouldn't cover more than 16" from the handle. It may be 14", but I'm pretty sure it's 16".

So, while some could get on the ball, it's not very likely and it'd not be in very high quantity.

Wait, no... I decided to check before hitting the button and I'm too lazy to edit the above. I misremembered. It's 18". (Section 3.02)

https://content.mlb.com/documents/2/2/4/305750224/2019_Offic... (That's actually 2019, but I doubt it has changed. The rule has been there forever.)

The point remains the same. Ideally, you'd be contacting the ball much further up the bat. There still might be some transfer, but probably not a whole lot.

You could also collect every strikeout ball and put them in a bag marked by pitcher for analysis. After a few games, you could quite easily see which had uncharacteristically higher tar on them versus baseline. That is, if the MLB actually cared.

Assuming strikeouts with no fouls. Which is probably true much of the time with these unhittable pitches.

Pitchers are putting the substance on every ball. Nearly all strikeouts are caught directly by the catcher, and the 3rd strike is the hardest to get, so it would be a very good sample indeed.

I honestly don't know how many times my data has been stolen from various entities. The biggest/most important was the OPM breach, but there have been so many more that I legit don't know the number of times and would have to paw through a bunch of records to find out.

I didn't even realize that they were still diving for them. Here in Maine, they trap them. I don't know of anyone that still dives for them and don't think they do it much, if at all, here.

(I don't live near the coast, but I do have a 'lobster guy' that hooks me up.)

>I didn't even realize that they were still diving for them. Here in Maine, they trap them.

This sounds like a bit of New England banter. "Here in Maine, we use traps. The troglodites down the cape still dive for them."

I wonder what checks and balances are in place.

Can someone be a complete dirtbag and request that legitimate criticism be removed simply because they don't want folks to know they're a dirtbag?

Can convicts request the results be removed? How about sex offenders? How about people convicted of domestic violence assaults or similar?

What I was wondering is how do they verify that the person is the one requesting themselves be removed? Can you technically have all results of someone that you don't like be removed? I could see that harming businesses if your name is often associated with your websites around your business.

The policy in question covers websites that post individual's information and charge a fee for removal.

Disclaimer: Work at Google in this area.

Its a check on the state.

You can still go to individual services or your local municipality and ask.

I like the HN guideline enough to consider it for use on other sites and on my own.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html