I think pedantically anchors are the markers in the document, and the URL fragments refer to the anchors to tell the browser to scroll there. If I'm wrong, someone will be along to correct me...
Hi dang. Sorry to ask you here but I wasn't sure how to get in touch with the staff. Have you had the chance to review the email I sent to hn@ycombinator.com? I know you're very busy so I don't mean to rush you. I just want to make sure the spam filter didn't get it first hahaha
The only thing I can think of is people searching for literal vegetable rolls being annoyed by the irrelevant result and leaving it a 1 star review as an act of petty revenge. I was wondering if the photo wasn't doing it justice so I looked it up and it really does just seem to be a pretty normal sausage. I would also caution against taking this list too seriously: the top review for the fried spiders is a 5 star review that reads "woops forgot to fry them"
I know nothing about this topic and am likely making a complete fool of myself, but I think the point they were making is that the first statement seems to be ill will for a far less egregious offense than you are told to ignore in the second.
I see your point and there’s nothing foolish whatsoever in what you’ve written, but the actual point (the one that pertains to the practice the Buddha is giving) is that they’re both about what you (the supposed adherent) do. In both you’re supposed to do X, it doesn’t matter what Y does, so each is no different. Perhaps if Buddha got the chance to speak to someone dismembered by saws who hadn’t continued with a loving heart towards their attacker then he’d call them a bloody idiot too. I also don’t think it’s right to think that someone speaking that way is harbouring ill will, do we not sometimes scold children for their own good and out of love? Must we always be avoiding plain speaking so that we appear kind? He was a trainer, not someone’s mum.
I give you that - a more deadpan reaction would have been better. So you broke your vows - well, that's your life and you're no longer welcome among my disciples - good bye and best of luck. No need to get angry. But that's why nobody should take scriptures literally. They go through so many ears and mouths and pens that it's effectively a telephone game.
This isn't about being punished for not following rules or vows. According to tradition, there weren't even any rules in the beginning, but they developed in response to the growth of new recruits. This is a statement about the gravity of the situation for a monk specifically. To live a celibate monastic life is to be extremely sensitive and also to have an abusable power over others. Sexual misconduct is particularly dangerous for someone in a position of spiritual authority.
The example is extreme because it is meant to put the problem into context. Everyone can immediately think of someone harmed by religious sexual abuse, but the idea that it's the context of the sex and not the sex itself is still difficult for us to understand because of our preconceptions. Buddhist morality always focuses on intention and context. The rules for monks and lay people are completely different for a reason.
While this may not work for tablets (?), the vast majority of laptops have a setting called two-finger scrolling that lets you use two fingers on a trackpad to give scroll wheel inputs.
Really? Personally, I would say that a "great" con is one that makes lots of money, putting Web 3.0 pretty far up the list when it comes to grassroots level scams.
That's a frankly ridiculous point of view. You're talking about a literal child cheating at an online video game. It's not that big of a deal, kids do dumb stuff.
I don’t consider 16 year olds to be children. If they are, they shouldn’t be driving. Yes, all kids do dumb things. But, if you are still behaving stupidly or dishonestly at 16, well that’s a different issue. That it’s no big deal to the younger generation explains why the country is as messed up as it is.
that would make the games themselves extremely boring, which makes it no longer really a game of chess and more like the Penn & Teller Fool Us show but more specific.
Or maybe because it's impossible to guarantee that you'll find what you're looking for and you may not even be looking for anything specific, making "search" a more honest and literal term? I'm not saying Google results haven't been getting worse, but blaming that on Google entirely instead of rampant SEO (which is mostly used by people who want to make money, not people who want to provide useful information) and the lack of hand curated directories to steal relevant results from are likely just as detrimental to good search results as Google's ad prioritization. While Google certainly hasn't been helping, the web has been falling apart (in terms of usability at least) for at least a decade. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetency.
https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/ab10a90523e06df54bbb8a...