herbig

Yes. This exactly.

I'm not outraged, just surprised that people would so heartily upvote such a comment.

People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.

If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.

The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad.

The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard and dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle.

A couple of people hating on this. Despite the obvious fact that you can in fact get lost on a trail, the progress of autonomous rescue drones doesn't just end at following trails.

Once they're able to detect trails and follow them looking for people, the next step would be detecting signs of where they might have wandered off trail, or (especially in snowy conditions) detecting and following where they have started their own trail.

Except that in your example, the trees are influencing by environmental factors throughout their life, whereas the first sentence of this article says it's environmental factors in utero that influences fingerprints.

It's been two hours this has been posted and no one has yet self congratulatingly posted a wikipedia link to a certain law about title's ending in question marks. I'm proud of you guys.

It's not the difficulty of the lock but just the fact that it's there as a deterrent. If someone really wants to get into your home they'd break a window or kick down the door. The lock is mostly for crimes of opportunity and personal reassurance.

Ha, that's pretty awesome. Still going strong.

My main issue with the article is that despite only using pseudonyms, the author easily revealed the real life name of one of the individuals by quoting her Twitter account.

Maybe the author doesn't understand technology, but this shouldn't have slipped by editing. Which really leads me to believe there was none.

Really interesting, but a lot of grammar errors and runwithfire gets doxxed by the author within the article. Don't papers have editors anymore?

No no. My main concern is authors gaming HN to promote terrible content.

I find it to be garbage self promotion when an article with little and/or poor content is submitted by the author and immediately gets 10+ upvotes without any comments, sending it straight to the front page.

In this case, straight to the front page despite many negative comments about the content.

If the article is not an Amazon link farm, it sure as hell reads exactly like one. So much so that my assumption is that the author intended to add in referral codes at a later date when reaching peak audience.

Ha, yeah. Lots and lots of Amazon products, with referral codes.

Garbage self promotion submitted by the author himself.

That's assuming a technological civilization's natural progression is towards space travel, which may or may not be true. The Aztecs were way "behind" when explorers first discovered them, but were doing pretty fine.