catshirt

7 ms·

1.
by catshirt 9y ago
thank you for a thoughtful response. your first point regarding "no non-controversial statements" points out a flaw in my logic that i hope we can move past to my example. i try to illustrate, that the graph of `ACTIONS <->
2.
by catshirt 9y ago
so if i can repurpose someone else's example: you're suggesting that if i make a knife for buttering bread and it kills someone because i was careless in my creating of the knife, there is "obviously" no ethical impact b
3.
by catshirt 9y ago
> A brittle blade that was made to save money but shatters and slices flesh on a bone was an ethical impact. by that logic, basically every decision we ever make has an ethical impact. which is probably true but kind of watered down. &gt
4.
by catshirt 9y ago
the fact that i might disagree with it (never said i did by the way), would suggest that others might disagree with it, would suggest it is definitively controversial. a lot of the country would argue that gun makers don't have too m
5.
by catshirt 9y ago
the reason i am being downvoted is because hacker news is fucking garbage now. too many insecure, underqualified jackasses looking for a reason to argue.
6.
by catshirt 9y ago
and saying "they have an app" is ignoring OP's actual point, which is all i am trying to defend. no one is calling into question the merit it's taken to build Shazam as a company. how do i find myself defending the most
7.
by catshirt 9y ago
what is your point? saying the algorithm "wouldn't work" without an app is like saying my door doesn't work without a doorknob. OP made a point: Shazam is not magic, and people have the opportunity to compete or DIY. to
8.
by catshirt 9y ago
it’s just a button. and in a perfect world I wouldn’t even need a button
9.
by catshirt 9y ago
and the ones you do...
10.
by catshirt 9y ago
thread i participated in yesterday would suggest about half of HN welcomes it with open arms.
11.
by catshirt 9y ago
my only point is that however you interpret the article, pivoting your response towards mocking conspiracy theorists speaks more towards a personal peeve than an objective analysis of the documents. at best it's almost irrelevant. at w
12.
by catshirt 9y ago
i don't think your analogy is strong. but instead of continuing to mince words... s/*/plan/ for literally whatever word you choose. and my point stands. discussed? evaluated? none of it makes me feel better.
13.
by catshirt 9y ago
sorry, I’ve edited the word “planned” into my post as to not seem misleading. (forgive me for paraphrasing the title of the thread incorrectly). unsurprisingly, it doesn’t actually change my point in the slightest. maybe we can have a more
14.
by catshirt 9y ago
“a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention” what is that, if not a fake attack for political purposes?
15.
by catshirt 9y ago
news report confirms another instance of the US planning fake attacks on its own citizens for political purposes and your response is to chastise conspiracy theorists? your frustration seems a little misdirected. which is the bigger offens
16.
by catshirt 9y ago
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond... https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-photo-of-president-trump-dump... an honest question, do your content police block CNN for t
17.
by catshirt 9y ago
dude. i get it. you are only further articulating everything i have already accused you of. you want a company or government to decide what content gets blocked. that is what's partisan. remember this conversation when the guy you do
18.
by catshirt 9y ago
ok. read the whole article. and i understood you right off the bat just fine. you want to block fiction from the internet. specifically, political fiction. and to be really generous, more specifically, political fiction with a certain inten
19.
by catshirt 9y ago
> "real fake news" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope or (to play coy): you're suggesting we block fiction from the internet...?
20.
by catshirt 9y ago
come on. read between the lines. i'm saying that blocking websites is fascist behavior, not noble work. don't abuse your family's trust by imposing political censorship on them.
21.
by catshirt 9y ago
their use of "but" would suggest OP is definitely talking about Mozilla
22.
by catshirt 9y ago
yea, but we're not talking about the rest of the world in this thread, are we? also seems a little misguided to defend to a generalization with another generalization. no? lighten up guys. it was kind of funny.
23.
by catshirt 9y ago
> If good full-body tracking comes to mainstream VR, we'll be doing it with cameras, not wearables. you're not going to physically move your body through 3d space with cameras. dude your post is all over the place. i can't
24.
by catshirt 9y ago
so, they're using tech they built to help you walk faster... to make shoes that don't let you walk anywhere. science! hope it works out, seems like an interesting solution.
25.
by catshirt 9y ago
and no one in the equation killed you yet. :)
26.
by catshirt 9y ago
the percussion mode is really cool. it would be awesome if it could work with something like finger tapping (something like TableDrum).
27.
by catshirt 9y ago
how come no one ever told me you have to change diapers 20 times a day. wtf??
28.
by catshirt 9y ago
no, i guess it positioned itself as jeopardy-as-a-service
29.
by catshirt 9y ago
the article is anti-design. not anti-html.
30.
by catshirt 9y ago
"I joke that I know all 50 Clojure programmers in the US, and sadly, that's not much of an overstatement" yeah no i'm pretty sure that's a drastic overstatement

More ›