matthew9219

Do you think these statues are hate speech or obscenity?

How would it hurt you? The American Heritage Dictionary gives three definitions of hurt:

> 1. To cause physical damage or pain to (an individual or a body part); injure.

> 2. To experience injury or pain to or in (an individual or a body part).

> 3. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.

Does looking at them cause you mental or emotional suffering?

What if I said that it caused me the same mental or emotional suffering anytime anybody wore a tshirt? Would you also say people should only wear tshirts inside?

They do. The problem is drug addiction. If you give drug addicts free houses, eventually the word gets out, and then even more drug addicts move to your state. Eventually you find yourself like California - spending an immense amount of money of an immense number of drug addicts mixed in with a few people who are down on their luck.

People addicted to heroin don't achieve their potential or their aspirations. The compassionate thing to do for drug addicts is to help them stop being addicted to drugs, not give them an apartment where they can do drugs without bothering anybody. Parent commenter is saying the state is doing mostly the latter and little of the former.

I didn't quite speak clearly and so let me try to clarify. It's the opinion presented as opinion containing opinion presented as fact :).

In examples:

- "summer is the best season" is an opinion

- "summer has the highest temperatures" is a fact

- "summer is the best time to have romantic encounters" is an opinion

- "summer is the best season because romantic encounters truly only happen in the summer" is a weird amalgamation. It clearly presents an opinion, and says that opinion is based on a true fact, but in fact, the true fact the opinion relies on is not a fact at all, but merely another opinion.

Seems specious. Democratically elected representatives said it was to encourage the investment of capital as they wrote the laws, and then got reelected by the voters. You can say the representatives were lying and the voters didn't care / are dumb - but where's the evidence?

I think the simplest explanation for why representatives vote the way they do is the public statements they themselves make before and after their votes. If you want to make a more convoluted argument and assert a conspiracy, you should bring some evidence.

The discussion is about the quote in the article, not about what the previous commentator said.

It's an understandable position yes.

It's not quite so understandable to me that somebody would believe that position to be an inherent truth ("truly owe") rather than just a position.

Capital gains taxes have historically been lower to encourage the investment of capital. This might be good or bad policy. Many economists say it's good policy.

It's stating opinion as fact.

Fwiw (tangent), I don't necessarily believe either of those instances were cosmic-ray induced bit-flips. I'd have to dig up the study, but I read a study once that more or less concluded "cosmic-rays are more common in memory unsafe languages and on overclocked PCs". Or more accurately, engineers frequently misattribute memory corrupt and operating outside specification to cosmic rays.

Particularly when the software in question is running on somebody else computer, proprietary software and OS (or OS modules), unknown patch versions, etc.

You are looking for a debate, I think. It's the whole thread. You're nerd sniping. It's classic.

You're not a fan of DNSSEC and prefer CT. When faced with examples where CT doesn't cut it, you refuse to discuss the big picture, pounce on incorrect details, and then resort to claiming your opponents are uninformed or arguing in bad faith.

The bottom line is my original big picture claim, the part that's on-topic for the article - that CT works for browsers on personal computers but not other classes of internet connected devices - it's true! And you know it! But you'd rather debate the details than inform readers about what they actually want to know (the big picture - i.e. that DNSSEC is useful).

I've observed your behavior before on hacker news, but experiencing it directly is eye opening.

Of course it does. CT trust relies on root programs removing bad CAs and root programs and security researchers sharing information about bad CAs with root programs. The root programs, CA, and security researchers are colloquially "the CA community".

Do you believe CT protects set-top boxes against surveillance from nation state actors who compromise your router? Yes or no, if you don't answer, you're not engaging in good faith.