Response to dang: I disagree with the no-delete policy (our comments are ours and we should have the ability to delete them), but more importantly I refuse to leave a comment up when my ability to reply has been disabled.

What is the name for this and is it documented anywhere? I've seen several posts that discuss "undocumented" features of HN but so far none of them have mentioned this.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26866841

Points: 1

# Comments: 2

To dang: I disagree with the no-delete policy (our comments are ours and we should have the ability to delete them), but more importantly I refuse to leave a comment up when my ability to reply has been disabled.

This would only be possible if they were using the autopilot feature.

> the fire service did not know how to deal with the fire.

Tesla's advice is "let it burn":

> Tesla’s guidance suggests it’s better to let the fire burn out than continuing to try to put it out.

The CDC and FDA both agree that use of the J&J vaccine should be paused so they can further study this previously unknown side effect.

Maybe someone here could help you get in touch with them since you clearly know something they don't?

I have never seen PG quoted anywhere, not even on HN.

It's still somewhat difficult to find a clear explanation because the admins were banning people who mentioned her by name (despite the fact that she is a public/political figure in the UK). That had an extremely chilling effect on the discussions, but now the Streisand Effect is kicking in.

People immediately started pointing out all the instances where another NY Times writer (Nikole Hannah-Jones) has used the N-word. Many of those instances are tweets that she has only very recently deleted: https://web.archive.org/web/20210211163617/https://twitter.c...

No idea if it has any relation to the original Pinkerton strike-breakers, but using that name is pretty callous given its history.

The statement was obviously about personality traits, that much was clear based on the context in which the statement was made (this HN thread). You are now ignoring the context in which the statement was made and instead focusing on the use of the word 'context' within the statement itself. To make it easier for you to understand, here is what was implied by the statement given the context in which it was made "There's literally no context where attributing PERSONALITY qualities to people based on their skin color is OK."

Your argument about medical conditions is not only wrong (as pointed out by another commenter), it's completely irrelevant and off-topic. The discussion was only about personality traits until you tried to derail it.

This statement is still true: "There's literally no context where attributing qualities to people based on their skin color is OK."

You wanted to be pedantic, so you ignored the context in which that statement was made. If you hadn't ignored the context, you would've known the statement was about personality traits and not medical conditions.

There's at least one way this is beneficial for the employer: Desperate, obsequious job-seekers will be more willing to tolerate the degradation of being judged by a computer. It's perfect for finding employees who will ask "How high?" when you tell them to jump.

I applied to a few jobs at United Healthcare and they kept sending me HireVue interview invitations. Every time I rejected them and when prompted for feedback I said I don't want to be evaluated by a computer. Never heard anything from them (and didn't expect to).

The last time I used TOR it was almost impossible to do anything on the internet. Every Google search was met with "We detected you are a bot" and every website interaction was blocked by never-ending CAPTCHAs.

Nothing. Or, on second thought, maybe a large donation to a children's hospital. I would expect a public servant from the highest office to be committed to public service. The presidency shouldn't be monetized, but if a former president really needs money they could always sell a book. That doesn't create any perverse incentives like speaking fees.

If not, it's probably safe to assume the consumer has to pay the fee.

https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20...

You must be fun at comedy shows...