TarpitCarnivore

The abundance of AMP links in Google search results, and how they purposely block actions, feels like some cheap SEO hack ala Experts Exchange in 07/08 or Quora.

I honestly don't even know what you're arguing over anymore. You asked me questions, I answered them and offered context on my responses but yet you continue to tell me how I'm wrong.

> Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not

The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him. That is right in the video, clear as day. That is very much a clear fact. What you seem intent on breaking down is whether or not this was seen as some form of intimidation tactic and I'm trying to explain to you that people can, and do, interpret personal encounters like that in varying ways.

You seem to be one who can't understand the way in which people are able to react and interpret actions of people different. You asked me my opinion of the situation and then proceeded to tell me that my perception of reality is wrong. I watch that video and I personally feel that they are being intimidating, how am I in a 'confused nature of reality'. I am watching people confront each other and reacting to the situation.

Your whole argument on this video boils down to "your personal feelings don't match mine, so you're wrong".

> You mentioned a fact was a matter of people interpreting a narrative. "While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right." That is not how facts work

I'm speaking to how some watched videos and felt they agreed with WaPo on the matter. There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events. This isn't a situation of clear cut and dry (like the recent released footage of the Chicago officer). It's people reacting to a situation and how it's making them feel.

> We are debating whether children surrounded and intimidated an old man as reported by the Washington Post. We are doing so because WaPo was cited as an example of 'real news'. > That did not happen. WaPo was wrong.

Your statements are perfectly proving my point. To people that scene and moment gave them a sense of intimidation. You cannot tell them their feelings and interpretation of the situation is wrong. If I walk up to you and stand in your face, and you tell me that it made you feel intimidated I don't have the right to go "Stop, you're wrong".

> You keep discussing unrelated issues without specifically answering whether you believe this happened or did not happen

Im trying to explain to you why that particular situation is not something you can clearly point to as fake news. I'm trying to paint a larger picture to the whole matter and why many took issue with it.

Since you're so hung up on the matter, yes to me I viewed the way those kids acted as intimidating and inappropriate. If I saw that many kids in a group, wearing those hats, and chanting the way they did I would not want to be near it.

I am not disputing the moments before and during. There is no doubt the events going on were a powder keg of problems waiting to tip off.

However my comment was about how that actual scene can be viewed differently by people, and is exactly what is happening. This is not a matter of scientific facts being disputed, it's an interpretation of a real life event that took place. Too many people, the scene of 30-40 boys yelling and acting how they did invoked a sense of fear and intimidation to them. Too many others, it was just 'boys being boys'.

The other reason people are so miffed over this is because of the actual people in it and the narrative. For one, a boys family had the means to hire a PR firm to help with the ordeal (again, a place of privilege). And two, there is so much hand wringing over this boy and this event, but for some reason when many young men have been shot or hurt by cops it's often met with negative depictions of the person hurt. You can call this whataboutism all you want, but that's the reality of it. Why in this instance where a boy and his group of friends, that are clearing acting up and provoking others (not even touching the negative nature of their hats), are given a free ride as 'boys being boys' but yet we chastise people who get in trouble with cops? Aren't those same people "just being boys"?

> But this raises a deeper question: is your Average Joe Citizen (who is not an engineer, but maybe a barista, salesman, banker, etc) equipped to have an opinion about climate change at all?

This comes off pretty condescending. What makes an (assuming computer) engineer any more capable of reading & comprehending reports than a barista or banker?

That story is a perfect example of perception of a situation and how people view it in many ways. While you say the narrative is wrong, many feel the narrative was right.

Tropical Tidbits is a more US focused site with an emphasis on tropical storm season (hence the name) but they keep the models running & updating all year.

> you should prioritize end to end testing. Test the interface of what you're selling, not the inner workings.

E2E tests can be slow and extremely fragile though. They have a place and purpose, but they should not be the only form. Why would you skip entirely over "inner workings" tests that could catch bugs sooner?

I think most of the metros in the US can handle this quite well. The last mile is far easier to solve in a city than a suburb.

Yeah, it's those that "pivoted to video". Mic was impacted, Univision struggled with Fusion, BuzzFeed walked it back, Verzion is obviously bailing on it, etc.

Even better are the ones that are keypads + smartlock. We'll probably be swapping over to one of the Yale locks which has a keypad & uses August's tech for the smart part.

Something I'm genuinely curious about and not trying to downplay success here, but is Product Hunt really a metric of achievement now?