Recent submissions

Comment · 3 years ago
One other problem is that whenever these conversations come up in "extremely public spaces" (i.e. the internet), you inevitably have a small group that strongly identifies with the textbook definitions of introvert/extrovert. Anecdotally (though this is the internet), this is almost entirely self-identified introverts; they will swear that every social interaction leaves them drained and they need a certain amount of hours alone to recover (there is almost certainly some confounding variables and bias at play here). Afterwards, those that do not see their own lives described by these definitions are generally less interested than the former group in arguing about the definitions' supposed validity.
Comment · 3 years ago
You do realize that I'm responding to someone that made the assertion, also implied in the NYT article, that this "donation" was "done in a way that intentionally incurred a large tax bill." Right? What you're saying directly contradicts that, which was my point...

This was very obviously not done "for pure personal financial gain..." But should billionaires be able to donate billions, tax-free, to exert political influence, which, generally (though, with rare exceptions, like perhaps Chouinard), they will use to directly benefit themselves and their family? And, should they be able to do so in a way that maintains that political influence for their family for generations to come?

Maybe Chouinard and his family have good intentions, but, like the article said, "one doesn’t want a constructed tax system predicated upon everyone being like the Chouinards."

Comment · 3 years ago
Chouinard is probably marginally better than your average billionaire, but it was almost certainly not done in a way that didn't also very clearly benefit him, and, more importantly, his family.

https://qz.com/patagonia-s-3-billion-corporate-gift-is-also-...

That NYT piece is, more or less, a fluff piece; and, it's also worth noting, this same maneuver is frequently used in ways that are probably seen less "charitably," given the political influence 501(c)(4)s' potentially wield.

Comment · 3 years ago
A majority of the use cases for self-driving cars are either solvable, or already solved, by some combination of better urban planning (i.e. zoning and probably large-scale regulatory reform), public transit (specifically useful public transit), and public investment. Unfortunately, in the United States, we are unable to do even one of these things sufficiently well, hence the need for self-driving cars (or, in some cases, some other technological solution; e.g. hyperloop).
Comment · 3 years ago
As someone who grew up in Austin, it was never walkable at any meaningful scale.
Comment · 4 years ago
It's far from the biggest source of disappointment I'm subjected to on a daily basis.

I also frequently choose not to engage with ill-informed comment threads; I'm regretting my lapse in judgement today.

Comment · 4 years ago
These are at least often informed by (overly specific) personal anecdotes.
Comment · 4 years ago
This is also not limited to just COVID discussion either. Most things that aren't somehow related to day-to-day software development devolve into unsubstantiated, or ill-informed, "ranting."

It's a source of constant disappointment.

Comment · 4 years ago
> Bus was awful.

Exactly. Similar to the problem many adults have trying to get to work by bus, it often doubles or triples a commute time.

Comment · 4 years ago
Finally. There are these long comment threads talking about high school students taking public transit/school buses, but that just isn't how most high school students get to school. It is unfortunate that mid/late teenagers are so dependent on cars, which often means dependent on a parent or other adult, but that's the type of cities we've built in this country.
Comment · 4 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton