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


> What do you call a billionaire who gives away their billions?

A generous billionaire.

Those that don't are just greedy billionaires.


> > And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

How does this fit in the narrative, when the ones speaking up (right or wrong, that's not the issue here) are being fired?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-c...


> they fully respect their users privacy

The data shows they do not.

Google Is Fined $57 Million Under Europe’s Data Privacy Law: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/technology/google-europe-...

Google Is Fined $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube...

There is even a Wikipedia page about Google VS users privacy

Privacy concerns regarding Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_regarding_Goo...



Then this should have been the comment.

But this article isn't evidence of Google having a liberal orthodoxy. It supports instead the claim that Google is a politically charged workplace, and that diversity advocates working at Google were facing harassment.


> Then this should have been the comment.

I simply noticed that it took literally a single search on Google to get to know about it.

Not trying to defend the OP.

> But this article isn't evidence of Google having a liberal orthodoxy

Or the opposite, if literally members of unpopular party work there and have that kind of power.

It supports the poster thesis (phrased in a provocative way) that this kind of issues are not unknown at Google, either one way or the other.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crenshaw-calls-googl...

I guess the part of the original comment (now dead) that says (quoting)

> That one guy: what a relief, because I’m literally a Nazi.

> Everybody: no. Leave that part at home.

> Guy: my rights are being trampled by a liberal conspiracy!

is exposed here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/google-sued-bias-clai...


> Because it's an extremely dishonest take on a highly political issue

It is also plausible.

Burying the head in the sand to avoid getting political is part of the problem, not of the solution.


False: you can't if you're browsing the site anonymously.


This is funny, downvoted for writing the truth...

It is impossible for anonymous readers to open dead comments.

If it is not, please explain me how to do it


I wasn't one of your downvoters. (As you may know, you can't downvote a direct reply to your own comment.) But I think I know why your comment was downvoted.

greesil wrote: "now that it's flagged I can't even re read it"

I replied: "You can read flagged/dead comments by turning on 'showdead' on your profile/settings page."

You then replied: "False: you can't if you're browsing the site anonymously."

Now ask yourself, who was the "you" I addressed in my comment? Obviously greesil, and by extension other logged-in users like yourself.

I wasn't talking to, or talking about, anonymous readers. I never said they could read dead comments. They don't have profile pages! The discussion had nothing to do with anonymous readers until you brought them up out of the blue and incorrectly called my comment "false".


I thought comments downvoting or flagging was based on the content, not on grammar.

Anyway, I had to login with my phone to comment and read the dead comment, at work I go through a corporate firewall that strips all the unnecessary headers, so I can't stay logged in on HN and I can't read dead comments.

So maybe that you should have been an "I".

I'm not an anonymous reader, but during the day I'm forced to be one.

BTW anonymous readers are probably not an irrelevant number, they still are users and they still count.

Your answer was not entirely wrong, but it was incomplete, hence not true or false.

Don't take it personally.

It's like assuming that everybody speaks a perfect English, it's false.

Not even native English speakers are immune to errors.


> What advantages would a more complex memory model yield?

consistency



I haven't encountered it so far.

Last time I fiddled with something Go based was wit cfssl (cloudflare's excellent PKI thingie), and that uses something else. I don't remember what, it's in the GitHub Action YML file now. (Which alas turned out to be a big hot air pipeline :// )

I plan on learning a bit more about Go, but last time with the 2.0 proposal and the go mod/dep thing it seemed like there will be some streamlining, so I decided to postpone the immersion into the Go-cean.


Because it's not a lie.

Justice system in Europe is not a business, like it is in US, or a way to inflict a punishment, it is a rehabilitation process: if you prove you have changed, you can benefit from reduced sentences, furlough for good behavior and/or early releases.

If you haven't, you stay in jail.

Think about the U.S. system where people can be taken to custody for murder but can bail out, is that better in your opinion?

In Italy, for example, to keep mob affiliates in jail in solitary confinement, so they can't speak with the outside, they had to make a specific law, otherwise it would not be possible within the Italian prison system.


The justice system is, and should be, always primarily about punishment. Governments who forget that do so at their peril. Punishment isn’t just why we have a justice system — there’s a reasonable case that it’s why we have government at all!

Humans have a strong natural instinct towards justice — when soneone wrongs us, we want to take revenge. In a state of nature this of course leads to endless and bloody feuds, so at some point it became more sensible to devolve the job of taking revenge to some kind of king or government, to ensure that revenge is taken exactly once instead of becoming a never-ending cycle.

This worked pretty well for thousands of years, but in the last century or so it has been falling apart. Soft-headed Government types have started to believe that the actual purpose of the justice system is rehabilitation, not justice, and as a result justice is rarely if ever served. Ask victims of crime if the sentence given to the perp is anywhere near what they’d choose, and they’ll say no. And then, the sentence that is given rarely gets carried out, like this scumbag who was sentenced to life and released just twenty years later.

The right to revenge is one of the most important human rights of all, and it is utterly neglected in western societies these days. A proper justice system would have a lot more crooks dying in jail and a lot less crime being committed.


> The justice system is, and should be, always primarily about punishment

Not in Europe, since "Dei delitti e delle pene" (On Crimes and Punishments ) from Cesare Beccaria.

It was 1764, we were already aware of that.

Justice is not a way to inflict punishment, the sentence, as Beccaria put it "should be in degree to the severity of the crime" and should work as deterrent, not as retribution (which is usually the case in US especially the death penalty, that have the purpose of giving "an eye for an eye" to the victim's family).

> Humans have a strong natural instinct towards justice

No, they don't.

Homō hominī lupus, men are very social animals, it doesn't mean they lean naturally towards justice, they just defend their communities against other communities.

> This worked pretty well for thousands of years

It didn't actually.

That's why we constantly reformed our justice system.

Think about the code of Ammurabi, does this work in your opinion?

"If the wife of a man has been caught lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the waters. If the owner of the wife would save his wife then in turn the king could save his servant."

It never really worked, especially for the regular folks, still today has a lot of flaws let alone thousands of years ago. In Italy it was legal to kill the wife that cheated (but not the husband who did the same), it was called "honor killing" and it was abolished only in 1981.

So, no.

> The right to revenge is one of the most important human rights of all

It is its greatest fault indeed.

And it is what makes USA a country where the risk of being killed by a stranger is 10 times higher than in Italy (5.63/100,000 vs 0.55/100.000), it is higher than many third world countries or countries that are at war like Sudan, Kenya, Niger, Libya, Syria or Iran.


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

Search: