Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bbddg's comments login

Yeah and it was probably equally craven and opportunistic to bring them in as well.


Imagine doing something with money that isn't investing in a for profit company.


That feels like a non-segueter given the comment I was responding to


Was it intentional that you used the phrase “rolling sentences around her mouth, like toffee” in a post about how it’s better to write plainly?


Yes. Well done!

Having said that, I don't think it's good policy to remove everything, down to the point where you have: Mary came in. She saw John. John saw her too. Mary said "Well, what now?". John replied "I don't know"

Sometimes it's hilarious to describe the body language and internal monologue of a particularly awful character, and sometimes it feels pushed.

Thank god I'm not a writer. It's hard enough writing something that passes a linters / CI tests and works in production without adding "how does it make you feel to read it?". Code is written to run on machines. That's is function. But it should be written to be understandable and maintainable to humans as a secondary goal. But taking a human, making them laugh, making them cry and changing their life? I wouldn't know where to start.

But oddly, I re-read my own post and now I have a strange desire to find out what happened between Mary and John.

2026: Ground breaking novel by raffraffraff, "The thing that occurred between John and Mary"


Care to share your examples?


A president who is willing to do those things, and has a military willing to carry those orders out, isn't likely to be stopped by the court telling them it's illegal.


Bad logic.

Is someone more or less likely to perform such an act if there's a possibility of legal consequences? If not, then we don't really need courts at all, do we?


The fact that the courts have explicitly legalized these blatantly criminal acts is what gives the military the cover and the imperative to dutifully carry them out.


Yeah GTA doesn't have much in terms of destructibility. Some of the battlefield games do this pretty well though, particularly Bad Company 2. It was very common in that game to use explosives to make different ways in and out of buildings.


Also Battlefield 1. With the wide range of tanks and explosives, the WWI-era buildings become quite destructible


I think for anyone not working in national security, any thug could just as easily get your password out of you.


Reminds me of this wondeful scene in Ronin:

Everybody has a limit. I spent some time in interrogation... once.

They make it hard on you ? - They don't make it easy.

Yeah, it was unpleasant. I held out as long as I could.

All the stuff they tried. You just can't hold out for ever.

How'd they finally get to you?

They gave me a grasshopper. - What's a grasshopper?

That's two part gin, two part brandy, one part crème de menthe...


The probability that humans are still driving around in cars, self driving or not, in 1000 years is incredibly unlikely.


Yes but also deeply besides the point the post you are replying to is trying to make.

His question is - can your mind wrap around the amount of progress that can happen in 1000 years? If yes, can you imagine that going from "now" to "fully automated cars" is a small amount of progress, relative to progress that's possible on 1000 years? If yes, great - now you can dial back that it probably won't take 1000 years.


Which cities actually have lowered their police budgets since 2020?


This doesn't deserve to be downvoted. Despite the "defined the police" bogeyman, it seems as though the police budgets of every city have done nothing but increase every year.


Yes it is.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: