Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more h3throw's commentslogin

That could very well be an affect of long term acclimation.


There's a big difference between seeing high concentrations of carbon dioxide as indicative of poor ventilation and seeing high concentrations of carbon dioxide itself as detrimental to cognitive function.


Very valuable to know. Thank you.


Way OT, but, I'm interested in why you and the parent comment are writing Netflix with a capital "F" as NetFlix. I've not seen this in any of their branding or collateral before. Is there a specific reason for it?


Years of writing camelCase code have taken their toll. At least they have for me.

Either that or there is some (justifiable) brand confusion, as there are brands/companies spelled like that: "iPhone", "eBay", "FedEx", "DreamWorks", "HarperCollins", etc.


Not familiar with the service for the aforementioned reason, the catalogue is a joke here. That spelling seemed more likely to me given all the companies written like that.


You're making a very large number of assumptions. In particular #1, #3 and #4. None of these are clear.


It seems most posters didn't really read the article as the tariffs appear to be in compliance with a WTO ruling on something illegal the EU is doing wrt subsidies to Airbus. Unsurprising that the NYT and HN goes with the lead that Trump is unilaterally fucking up world order yet again but in this case it doesn't seem so deserved.

I really wish both groups (the NYT and HN) would be more nuanced when it comes to Trump. Otherwise, we all end up justifying Trump's and other Alt-Righties' claims of bias.


Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story.

The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph.

If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head.

It's somewhat bold to fault others for an error that is entirely yours.


It's all in my head?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995

I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete.

When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not include the _why_.


I think you're contriving viewpoints that simply aren't there. Nobody is talking about Trump, rather people are enjoying the irony of the US being one of the countries that subsidizes the most yet complaining about other countries.

On another note, I think your headline is fine. After all, surely the secret service is capable of non-lethally incapacitating a man with a machete. But even if not, it's false equivocation.


Tried to create an Outline but it seems WSJ blocks them. Very interesting article wrt economics of buffets in NYC. Apologies for paywalled link.


> I do not want my buying habits mined , bought and sold, etc. They are my property and not subject to the whimms of amazon or any other company.

In order to make a purchase of X it is required that another party exists to make a sale of X. Let's call this transaction A. Why do you believe that the metadata of transaction A is owned solely by the purchaser and is not equally owned by the seller?

Even further, is there really a differentiation between the purchaser and the seller? It's really just an exchange of a good or service for dollars where the "buyer" is the one with the dollars and the "seller" is the one with the good or service.


Yeah the listicle type results have really started to increase in search relevance for me. ESPECIALLY when I search on mobile. I think mobile Google Search is a truly awful experience with an extremely cluttered results page that I can never properly navigate.


What!? I've lived in the Mission for 5yrs and know plenty of others who also have. Never once been mugged our had my house broken into!

The car thing, though, everyone in SF who street parks has had their window shattered and car scavenged...


3 out of ~7-8 people I know in the Mission (uncertainty is because of different definitions of "know" and "the Mission" - is Dolores Triangle part of the Mission? Bernal?) have gotten mugged. One was on 16th & Folsom, another around 24th or 25th & Mission walking home to Bernal Heights, a third around 22nd & Van Ness. This is also over a fairly long period of time - over 10 years or so, though the people in question largely don't live in the Mission anymore.

It seems like the East side of the Mission (Folsom & Van Ness) is significantly less safe than the west side (Valencia & Guerrero) - I'll walk down Valencia and feel perfectly safe, while I'm always looking around me between Mission & Folsom.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: