qualeed

Calling a comment "ridiculous" is against the guidelines?

Okay. Hopefully it isn't against the guidelines to say I think that's a silly guideline. Apparently saying "ridiculous" in response to a comment is very selectively enforced, must be my lucky day.

Anyways, this is probably the reminder I needed to stop commenting to HN. Some of the moderator decisions you guys are making lately are just.. way off base to me. Either you've changed or I have. Probably me.

Time to randomize the password. Cheers.

The DSM-5 is from the "American Psychiatric Association".

Phillip Zimbardo, and the link you linked to, are the "American Psychological Association".

These are two different associations.

Theresa Miskimen is the president of the American Psychiatric Association, not Zimbardo.

Not synonymous with "spreading hate".

>I'd rather look like a goof (nothing wrong with being goofy or weird sometimes) than help spread hatred.

No one in this thread is helping "spread hatred".

I'm pretty sure they are implying that it might be a bad policy to not ban nazis.

>Relative size is what matters here.

This is where our disconnect is. Relative change in size means nothing to me. I care about the absolute size of the final thing I'm installing.

Adobe big, getting bigger. Sumatra small, staying small.

For the purposes of what this post is communicating, I don't think the exact sizes of adobe prior to 2000 or the exact size of sumatrapdf matters at all.

The linear graph instantly communicates:

    - sumatrapdf has barely changed size in the same time that adobe's size has grown exponentially

    - adobe's crazy growth spike started ~6 years ago

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I didn't realize the graph had a log y-axis at first. Then, once I realized that, I had to spend a bit of time parsing the graph to figure out what it was saying (I don't work with log graphs often at all). And once that was done, the only thing I came away with was "wow, adobe grew a hell of a lot when sumatra didnt", which is the same thing the linear graph told me instantly.

Being able to see that sumatras size remains relatively flat while adobes size growth is practically vertical is all the granularity I care about at a glance. If I want to know exact sizes, I'll dive in deeper.

For the purposes of this article, this graph is much more effective at making the point than the log scale one. I think it would have been a better choice to use a graph like this.

Thanks!

1) "De-googling" doesn't need to be a binary, all-in or all-out situation. Any reduction in reliance of Google (or any single point of failure) is good. Diversifying the big stuff (mail, storage, etc.) is a great start. About last on the list is worrying about the occasional allowance for gstatic.com or whatever.

2) While I occasionally need to allow some scripts from google, it's absolutely nowhere near 1/3rd of sites.