chestnuttrees

I think it’s actually pretty silly. The same people demanding you no-hello them (that is, try to enforce a social solution on everyone else to solve something they can easily solve technically) will also tell you to e.g. use an as blocker, or go on about Postel’s law.

If a random slack message is going to ruin your concentration, that’s a you problem. Fix it on your end.

I agree, it doesn’t especially bother me. But if I don’t want notifications, I mute them. I don’t demand other people accommodate my inability to manage my own attention.

Thanks for pissing in the pool I guess.

I guess just blocking literal “Netflix” will cause 90% (99%?) of searches by consumers that “just want to watch Netflix” to fail. And if no one is finding scammers’ ads, maybe there will also be fewer scammers.

So perhaps the dumb approach is “effective enough”.

Presumably the pay is great if you already live there, but not good enough to convince people to move there?

Personally, it would take a 50%-100% raise before I would even consider consider uprooting my family and leaving my current city. But I’d switch jobs locally for half that.

I mean yeah you buy bad products and they’ll be bad… They’d manage to fuck that up in native land as well. Seems orthogonal.

Dang. This is why it’s fun to read HN. Thanks!

Think about e.g. 46th + Grand or 38th + Nicollet though? Small commercial corridors within residential areas can become the heart of the neighborhood.

I agree re: retail though, in my experience there and elsewhere it’s groceries + restaurants/cafes that drive the neighborhood commercial engine, and if there’s enough then you can see traditional retail.

(Not an urbanist just a human).

It’s an arms race of bad faith complaints leading to watered down responses, and mediocre responses leading to faux-outraged complaints, all involving a peanut gallery of online haters.

I agree with avoiding publicity (in this sense e.g by replying to online complaints or attacks, other than to redirect to a private channel), though I don’t like it.

Probably none of these are true:

1. He explained himself clearly to a journalist. 2. The journalist understood what he was saying. 3. The journalist relayed it clearly and accurately. 4. He or the journalist didn’t exaggerate his success story.

To your specific point I read that as a layman’s explanation of bias, and not at all as actually implying that if a 1, 2, 3 comes up then it’s sure to be a 4, 5, 6 next.

$100/mo cable, 5 lattes/week before work at $5/latte… it’s not so far off (unless you decide to litigate the definition of “few” or the average post-tax price of coffee in Nebraska or whatever). It’s illustrative.