Recent submissions

Comment · 13 years ago
What a fantastic catch. This is also one of Meyer's Effective C++ tips: always use const when applicable.
Comment · 13 years ago
Heh, so out of the millions of policemen and militants in the world, that protect the billions out there, you found a handful that have gone bad. Sure, let's let anyone kill anyone then! Moral reasoning!

Heh, I'm < 25 yrs old and a coder at a top software company with a six figure salary. And I've only been coding for a couple of years. I give you advice, kid.

Comment · 13 years ago
I'm not sure what these questions have to do with anything, but no, no, and no.

Again every point adds nothing to the debate:

Guns are tools for killing. I'm pretty afraid of that, and I think so are lots/the majority of other people, so that settles that.

Because there is the police and courts for trials. I don't want to be tried by some dude with shit judgement and there - my life is over.

You really are hopeless case. The whole world laughs at the stupidity of US gun control laws and it's just agonizing debating with someone on the other side. You know, the Boston bomber shouldn't have done that. He should've just assembled one of these and killed a couple hundred in the crowd, and you should be there.

Comment · 13 years ago
The idea that someone can kill me because I got them angry is sillier. There are the police and courts and the like.
Comment · 13 years ago
What, aside from the obvious reason? Someone in the military follows orders and serves the nation while someone with a gun will probably do whatever he/she feels with it and nothing actually useful. How is that?
Comment · 13 years ago
Wow! Why have any protection against getting killed at all?! Let's just let everyone murder everyone else at will and then we'll try them afterwards! After all we can't stop them if we wanted to. Great logic!
Comment · 13 years ago
I'd like to see your brave Kratos face with an AK-47 in your face.

Every point you make is wrong:

I'd have a decent chance of getting away from a car, I wouldn't from an AK-47. A car has other legitimate uses. Guns outside of the police and hunting, don't imo.

I wouldn't say being afraid of firearms counts me as having no spine and afraid of "anything". I just think you're kinda full of crap and would cry the most if you actually had a gun in your face.

I wouldn't say guns are just a means of force. A good punch, a knife is. A gun is just an automatic KO for me. So yes, I don't think the average person should be able to have a gun - something that serves no means other than give him the ability to kill people at will.

Comment · 13 years ago
This is bullcrap. When someone has a rifle pointed at you, you don't care what the statistics are. You know your life is in danger and much, much more so than if someone had a knife or "blunt object". How is it supposed to make me feel safe that anyone can have a rifle? I'll just trust in their goodwill and hope they won't kill me with it if I piss them off?
Comment · 13 years ago
What? How is this not a disgrace? This article means that practically anyone anywhere in the US can have an AK-47 with no licensing. How is that supposed to make me feel safe? What if I sneak into my GF's house and her dad tries me right then and there, and decides that the punishment for fucking his daughter is death. Oh, and what do you know? He has an AK-47 for it so all my hopes of running away are dashed. People shouldn't have the power to kill other people so easily - not unless they're the police or army.
Comment · 13 years ago
What awful advice. I prefer someone to ask me "Can I help you?" If I need help I'll tell him, if I don't right now I'll tell him. Cornering me like that with a two choice question would just provoke me to rudely answering "I'll let you know when I need help".
Comment · 13 years ago
Dear god don't compare the Xbox to Google TV. No. Google TV was shit slow at launch and that was enough to kill it, imo.
Comment · 13 years ago
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's true only if you use methods and not operators, because Go doesn't support operator overloading.
Comment · 13 years ago
Comment · 13 years ago
Comment · 13 years ago
I urge you to take this criticism more seriously. With your library a programmer is changing the semantics of class nesting in the language, all by pre-pending a very missable and ambiguous @case to the class. I'm no expert but I think this is pretty bad in any language, and especially one that says "explicit is better than implicit"

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton