anotherthrow

6 ms·

1.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
It all suggests derpmeister should be taken as a less reliable source than Blizzard, which does count against your comment. Sure, it's not a deductive proof that Blizzard is right and derpmeister is wrong, but it would be unreasonable to re
2.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
From the article: > This is beyond my wildest dreams of what I expected to make. Therefore the app creator did not have an accurate perception of what money he would make. Therefore he is a counter-example to your claim, and your claim
3.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
>Either they believe in paying a bigger share or they don't. First, They believe in rules to enforce everyone paying a bigger share, and are lobbying to bring that about. There's nothing inconsistent in doing that whilst not individua
4.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
Well, we can probably agree on downvoting them, even if we don't agree on their value (I don't think I'm ignore value - I just think there are more potential sources of it)! - the faq does ask people to refrain from posting them, and I feel
5.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
Look, here's the disagreement: >You've made this claim (thought without specifying why it's superior to the existing methods), and yet ignored the simple fact that a TIR post is just as bad, if not worse, then the post it replies to. At
6.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
I can't see that your argument engages with anything I've said. I've spelt out a plausible mechanism by which some comments would add value to the community (by preventing deterioration of standards of discourse). If you want to say otherwi
7.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
Well, one of HN's aims is to avoid the eternal september that is very much affecting reddit at the moment. Given that, superfluous jabs at reddit might actually be effective in maintaining a barrier between the communities, or at least stro
8.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
I don't tend to respond to ungrounded accusations of bias (and to pre-empt a claim, it does not follow that it's inappropriate to choose not to devote much time listening to members of the Cato Institute on the grounds they are members of t
9.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
That would be a representative of Dell, acting on behalf of Dell, arranging for payment to be made by Dell.
10.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
>I dont know when the stoped exactlly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act 'Many commentators have stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass-Steagall Act was an imp
11.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
That might be a start, but probably only if banks were suitably sized and regulated in the first place which wasn't the case this time. Better bank regulation / breaking up banks going forward seems more sensible.
12.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
Two points: 1. I wouldn't think for a second that Michael Portillo is a reasonable unbiased analyst here. 2. How do we prevent individuals from spending recklessly? Seems like government is going to have to play a large part in that story.
13.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
So Mark Zuckerberg wears the regulation silicon valley uniform to a meeting with bankers wearing their regulation wall street uniform? I'm not sure what the interesting content to this story is, but would be happy to be enlightened!
14.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
Look, there are several issues here. There's a narrow semantic point. On that point (which I think you explicitly denied), you can have monopolies over market segments. Personally, I like semantics, and think semantics is often less trivial
15.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
> I think its fair to say most peoples successes or failures lie solely on themselves. If that were true, wouldn't you expect economic and social mobility to be much higher?
16.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
Sorry, but a pet peeve of mine is people claiming 'that's a fallacy' on the internet, without much grip on the kind of reasoning or underlying argumentative structures are work. Suppose I have good reason to believe you are unreliable in yo
17.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
> To say that they have a monopoly over their products is not a cogent statement as every manufacturer has such a 'monopoly'. Well, I don't know what you mean by 'cogent', as that's generally taken to be a property of arguments and no
18.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
Why do you say this? A market segment just is a market according to the dictionary definitions. And legally, a lot of EU competition law concerns exactly how one individuates such markets/market segments. Can you draw out what you're claimi
19.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
I know, but on a (probably unfairly) uncharitable reading his advice is 'don't worry, that girl who didn't want to kiss you is a loser, and so are the people who don't want to hang out with you'. It might be comforting, but I don't think it
20.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
The sentiment of the article is great, but a lot of it just doesn't quite ring true. When the auther starts going on about other people being losers, and him being a winner, because they do things he doesn't personally value, you start to w
21.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
>"Predict the weather more than 10 days in advance", I should have said. That's false too. Predicting climate doesn't require predicting the weather. Compare: suppose you have a slightly biased coin - maybe 0.75 chance heads, 0.25 tails
22.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
>if we were actually capable of understanding what was causing global climate change, we would be able to predict the weather This conditional is (obviously) false. Given your argument seems to rely on it, your argument is not sound.
23.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
I'm in the same position of antonse - can you spell it out a bit more? Suppose I'm a student studying course X at institution Y with course textbook Z - I sign up to Boundless, and what do I actually get? A summary of Z? Or something else?
24.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
I'm sure this is a personal thing, but I agree completely - and I think it's often self-imposed. It's only after leaving academia that I can accept that successfully completing my PhD wasn't a failure, or tantamount to admission that it was
25.
by anotherthrow 14y ago
Their salaries are not bad too: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degree... As a philosophy PhD, I find the Philosophy > Starbucks meme obnoxious, but it's especially silly when philosophy is amongst the best Art/H