Can you share some interpretations you've come up with that fit those criteria?

Most people are uninterested in paying for those services, in part because the internet has trained them that information is free and in part because of fairly extreme polarization in opinions that seems to be everywhere.

Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good, but that information was something the news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago, reinforcing the idea that information should be free.

If there going to make money long term, they're going to have to find a new way to monetize. People are actively blocking the ads and don't want to pay for yet another subscription to content they don't access that often.

And yes, I think when a person finds themselves in a situation like this they should be examining their life choices.

I don't know why it's on hn though.

What are you actually suggesting here?

The reason people don't switch to medical devices is because even a fairly simple device without software or electronics can still take between $750k and $1.2M to develop and clear the FDA. Adding software is a cost & time multiplier.

As in: Unix-like OR POSIX-compliant

In that light, it's probably fine to not nitpick over certifications here.

Both the article and comment you commented on eschewed a trite political message and tried to say something real and human.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46031231

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

Hard to know at this point if the problem is with specific judges, with the way the law is written, or if the presentation of these experiences are made to seem more numerous by the way the article presents the story. It also didn't cover instances of abuse coming from mothers, so there's at least a little bias in the story.

Or in other words, it's hard to tell from the outside who really believes what you're stating and who believes it until it's inconvenient, or until it clashes with their personal ideology.

If you're a team of 5, handling 1,200 resumes, how much money are you expected to invest in this process? Does everyone take a week off billable work so you can find someone? Can you afford that? With only a team of 5, probably not.

We all want to feel like we're being treated well, but scolding someone because they were overwhelmed by the massive amount of adversarial spam they received for their job posting is a failure to put yourself in their shoes. Let's all be better people, here.

For a second I thought that was a great hypothetical example, then I remembered that's a thing that actually happens now in the UK and got a little sad instead.