kazoolist

The concept behind corporations as "people" is that people don't lose rights just because they are engaging in their right of free association.

The corporate entity only "has rights" because it is a collection of people, and those people have rights.

Ecosystems aren't collections of people.

> at best it leads to a big useless unanalyzed database

For me, rigorously tracking my caloric intake by weighting nearly everything I've eaten with a food scale and recording it in the Cronometer smart phone app has led to a 100 pound weight loss over the last year, and normalizing my blood pressure & triglycerides.

But, you know, at best ... just a useless database. Good grief.

'Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”' - SCOTUS opinion for Matal v Tam, June 2017

If you use VMware Player (and/or presumably Workstation) in "Unity" mode, you can alt-left drag to move and resize the virtualized-Windows-windows. Sometimes it gets a little wonky, but it works great 95% of the time.

+1 for Virtual Desktops and key mappings for each.

I do 3x3, mapped to <ctr>+<alt>+[1-9] on the keypad.

Would you be saying the same about "it's OK for companies like Google to have the courage to have an opinion" if Google was taking the opposite stand?

I'd prefer mega corporations staying out of social issues. Produce social value by making great products, not political advocacy.

I wondered the same thing. "No, you can't mix data types, that's stupid" leaves it ambiguous.

If you parse the outer array as just "array of arrays" (as each element is an array), you're not "mixing". But if we're supposed to be parsing it as "arrays of arrays of _type_", then we are mixing.

... or the kid's parents believe in creation but don't fit some ignoramus stereotype, and the kid comes to believe that the creation reveals the glory of a Creator (eg. Psalm 19), and accordingly this fosters curiosity about the way things work, and the kid becomes a scientist.

For a probably-different point of view on this -

I'm a person of faith, who takes his faith seriously, and who's faith teaches that homosexual conduct is immoral. I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).

Given my faith, advocacy like this from Google, Apple, and other prominent tech companies really put me in a bind.

Their products have become such fixtures in my day to day life that I'm not sure how to get by without them, but by using their products and providing these companies with revenue, I feel like I'm contributing to a fund for someone to publicly proclaim: "You're faith is a sham; your God irrelevant; and, by the way, we think you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot".

I wish Apple, Google, etc. would all just focus on making insanely great products and not jump into the fray of divisive-by-definition social issues.

And, no, I'm not a "homophobe" or "bigot". I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay.

At the risk of troll feeding, it's inaccurate to say state recognized incestual relationships and state recognized gay relationships are "completely separate issues."

At the heart of the moment for the later is an effort to change what the purpose of marriage is (or, perhaps, recognize a change that has already happened).

Specifically, the move to support gay marriage requires changing the idea of marriage being a relationship primarily concerned with natural procreation into one centered on the expression of romantic "love". You'll note, for instance, that Google is calling its campaign "Legalize Love".

The reason the state has opposed incest is that inbreeding leads to a much higher rate of birth defects.

But if marriage is shifted in focus from being primarily about creating an ideal situation for natural procreation to one based on "love", who is the state to say that two direct relatives are or aren't in "love" with one another?

Counter-point.

Public (gov't) spending "counts" in GDP, not because it's "expansionary", but because it's an expenditure on final goods and services. Even if government spending was contractionary, it would count towards GDP. That's just how GDP works.

Likewise, there are reasonable arguments that government spending is/can-be contractionary. (I won't try to show that such spending _is_ contractionary, just that it may be).

All that needs to happen for it to be contractionary is for each dollar of government spending to reduce (crowd out) private spending and/or investment by more than a dollar. Harvard economist Robert J. Barro has been arguing this is the case.

FWIW, I think the true Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (see other comments on this page) is a much better reference.

Hrm; I read that as "Oh ho - so the TSA strategy comes to light, _molestation_ plans are implemented"

Not how I remember it ... Dodd was intimately involved with the government's actions that contributed to the Housing Crisis and was the top recipient of campaign contributions from Freddie & Fannie.

All of which had the makings for a very difficult election battle in 2010, when Dodd recognized as he opted out of running for re-election in 2010.