Personal attacks will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong or ignorant another commenter may be.
Since you've frequently broken the site guidelines and ignored our requests to stop, I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
There was never a "Blackberry Razor" product. There was the Motorola RAZR phone that was just a flip phone that was very popular for a few years before the iPhone, and then there were Blackberry phones of the time which had small screens and small keyboards. Some people loved them but they were a fairly niche product mostly used by professionals who valued email access at all times.
When the iPhone came out it was a true revolution and the plans for Android phones at the time were entirely redone.
You’re showing a lot of faith that they will interpret the results fairly and act on them. The auto play video while browsing is pretty universally reviled and they haven’t turned that off.
Nor provided any means by preference to disable. Which means they aren't even willing to acknowledge a significant portion of users don't like the behavior and allowing them any recourse. Which means the autoplay is more for them than for us.
Yes, I am. I like the auto playing feature. I like the idea of interstitial promotional ads. I am Netflix’s target user and I consider myself a fairly nuanced consumer of their media.
A restaurant near me started serving impossible burgers a couple weeks ago. Since I have gout I am always trying beef and pork replacements.
Impossible burger’s patty is on par with a McDonald’s quarter pounder. Which is a reasonable accomplishment. It’s acceptable and enjoyable as a cheap burger. But it is not gonna fool anyone who really enjoys a good burger.
Which would be fine if people would stop overhyping it.
Nearly wiping out the bison was not a prerequisite to the US becoming self sufficient. Nor is destroying their natural areas a prerequisite for developing nations.
Additionally you’re presenting a false dichotomy of either we hold back developing nations or we say goodbye to nature. That’s ridiculous. We can help them to grow and become modern and raise their quality of life while preserving their precious natural areas.
As someone that has a godfather that has an actual Bison ranch, Bison are definitely still here thankfully, and are simultaneously awe inspiring and fear inducing.
That part of Dances with Wolves where they leave a trail is not inaccurate.
And Bison will graze on areas that to be blunt, are practially useless for anything else but digging up dinosaur bones. The only thing we need to do is get out of their way. And you can even cull them sustainably, just find the ones that are on their way out and use them for food.
But I know nothing about palm oil, I presume there should be some way to treat it like paper where we can leave the simians alone and farm our own.
Also, don't try to pet a Bison, even in national parks. They're like moose level scary if they see you as a threat. I don't get why people think wild animals like you petting them. I saw a buffalo wreck a F-250, they are not pets.
Connecting the coasts via trains would not have been possible with the millions of bison that used to inhabit the west. Either because of the bison directly destroying track, or interaction with the Natives who hunted the bison and were hostile towards Americans.
I don't know what point you think I'm arguing, but I am saying what happened historically. The US would have had a much harder time maintaining their gains from the Mexican-US war less than 20 years earlier(and may have ultimately lost California et al back to Mexico) if they were not able to connect the west coast to the east via rail.
What the hell do you mean "surveys"? You don't need "surveys" to tell you how many violent crimes there are in a year. We have actual statistics. And the numbers are not in the millions. Stop pushing lies.
Crime victimization surveys. The 'actual statistics' you refer to are reported crimes, i.e. crimes which were reported to the police and which the police took the time to record. They vastly underrepresent the actual number of crimes. That's why people who are interested in getting a more accurate estimate of the actual number of crimes do crime victimization surveys. This is all pretty well known and obvious. That you aren't aware of it is telling.
Hahaha uhh no. Not even remotely. This is completely pulled out of your ass. First of all the CDC has been banned from studying guns since GW Bush administration. Secondly deaths by homicide in the US aren’t even close to that. California had the most murders of any state in 2016 and it wasn’t even 2000, then it drops off quickly from there. Total murders in the US is less than 20k per year. For your number to be right guns would have to be stopping 93.7% of murders.
Where did you even get that ridiculous number from? Insanity.
Freedom of speech is about censorship from the government. As much as Silicon Valley companies love to self aggrandize they are not the government and are under no obligation to allow their platforms to be used for furthering hate speech (or anything else.)
In fact I firmly believe sites like Reddit, Twitter and Facebook allowing racism and other horrible crap on their sites in the mid 2000s until recently is what helped make it more mainstream. In the web of the 1990s these idiots would have had to go to their own sites that nobody else goes to. Mainstream sites like Slashdot or whatnot didn’t tolerate it. For some reason after the dot com crash the new round of sites afterward have had some kind of delusion that they need to uphold free speech. And it’s nonsense.
So what's the solution? If a big company opens a factory in an area, then the hire a bunch of people at that factory, people obviously want to move closer to where work is. It's not like those people can then say "Hey we need another company to open a factory here just in case." Even if there are other jobs created in the town, the loss of hundreds (or thousands) of jobs is always going to be devastating anywhere outside of a big city.
It's easy to say "Oh well those people shouldn't have bet everything on that factory." but that's not realistic or providing any kind of solution.
> So what's the solution? [...] the loss of hundreds (or thousands) of jobs is always going to be devastating anywhere outside of a big city.
It seems like the seeds of the solution are contained in your own post: don't live anywhere but a big city. Or, if you do, realise that you are making a risky bet with your entire family at stake.
A lot of mom and pop investors made incredibly poor decisions in Australia's mining boom, buying up properties in mining towns to rent for $800k+ and after the bottom fell out of the market only being able to sell at sub $200k. Often using equity in existing loans after appreciation to pick up three, four properties.
It seems insane to me to buy even one property in a mining town, let alone multiple.
That is capitalism doing its optimization work. It will punish the people that give credit in these risky cases and the people that make risky decisions like these because of greed.
If you buy property in more diversified regions you won't make as much money, but you have less risk and short term crises will usually pan out.
The people that gave credit in these risky situations are making record profits and their dubious banking practices have made them the subject of a royal commission.
Sure they’ve been theoretically ‘punished’ for lending too much by making a little bit less profit but it sure doesn’t seem like much of a corrective action to me.
That's because the government is corrupt. If the government actually let the banks fail and bailed out the citizens instead the bad banks would be gone, the citizens would have put the money into the economy again, and you'd have an economic miracle happening quickly, as it is common after such resets.
Government subsidized failure is one of the main reasons why communism never worked out. Bad companies need to fail and make way for more efficient or less stupid companies. Otherwise you end up with all your companies operating at roughly the same efficiency as the government (close to 0), because there's no incentive for them to avoid risk. They're rewarded either way.
Actually the solution was already tried and tested by American cities. It's called diversifying the economic base. Instead of relying on 1 mammoth company, try to develop and sustain multiple smaller ones.
All American cities that recovered from the '70s-'80s downturn, and even from the 2008 crisis were the ones with a higher number of smaller employers, startups, etc. The ones that diversified. Because they are more resilient to one company's failure.
Some towns adapt after a while. For example Lille and its neighboring towns in France. It used to be big in textile/coal industry.
Many old abandoned factories got converted into modern offices for startups, into stores etc... One example (scroll down for pictures) : https://www.usineroubaix.fr/fr/
Some part of the solution could be with city planning government officials. They could work to lure other different or complementary industries to their city/area. If the base labor skill set is similar but the parent companies are different enough, a downturn in one doesn't mean the city turns into a ghost-town.
I don't think we will see any industries with mass employment, and in eithet case, there's no reason why it won't be based near the largest cities. The prospect for remote areas is grim, and that includes even large-ish cities. Even if they are afloat you won't see much investment.
> If a big company opens a factory in an area, then the hire a bunch of people at that factory, people obviously want to move closer to where work is.
I'd be very very very hesitant to move to such a town for work. Granted, when you are unemployed you may not have a choice, but I'd definitely settle for a much worse job/worse pay in a non-mono-industry town.
