The point is that whether you drove dangerously is not a strict, machinistic "if-then" assessment. Automatic enforcement of speeding is ridiculous when viewed in this context.

And the people saying "yes but there is more energy in a faster vehicle" have clearly not felt the difference between driving a car with drum brakes vs modern brakes.

Of course technically option a is violating the law but no sane police officer will give you a fine in this case. Nor should they! A robot will, however. This is stupid.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47356644

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46646404

Points: 29

# Comments: 6

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46553121

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46291445

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44437704

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41607781

Points: 105

# Comments: 35

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41463809

Points: 660

# Comments: 206

I did. Because it was green!

In the case you describe, there are three possible outcomes, in broad categories:

1) The fields do turn out to be useful, in exactly the way you implemented them first.

2) The feature is implemented, but using a different set of fields or implementation.

3) The feature is not implemented.

Even if we assign equal probablility to all the options, creating them in the beginning still only results in a win in 1/3 of the time.

How much extra mental effort would have been spent making sure that all the other features implemented in the mean time work correctly with the metadata columns if they had not been removed?

Of course, you turned out to be correct in this case and that shows you certainly had excellent insight and understanding of the project, but understanding whether a decision was right or wrong, should be done based on information available at the time, not with full hindsight.

It's just interesting to me that lower in the thread with less votes there are actually insightful comments that have real content and the most upvoted comment is the one that says "this sucks because I can't afford it".

This seems to me to be an issue in a number of other places as well - the website previously known as twitter is probably a good example where someone posts something and a lot of the replies are just random hate and nitpicking about a single, irrelevant word in the comment.

I guess I just don't get why people bother to do that. And it is kind of interesting to think about - is there some way to encourage more thoughtful responses?

The guy is happy about his watch and goes into great detail explaining how it works and how it's made and why.

Why comment in such a negative way? I can't afford a 20k watch either, but so what? Why such jealousy?

You have contributed nothing, yet made the internet ever so slightly worse.

If by any chance someone knows the tools that were used to make the big-font subtitles (or the whole page?), enlightenment would be highly appreciated!

I'm trying to find something to compare to, but not sure if I'm getting this right.

I can't sense radio waves in the 87-110Mhz range, but let's imagine that most people can. This means that they can hear all the FM radios all the time.

Certainly, this would be very annoying, especially if you are not able to block it out. In this sense, I would be better off - one less annoying thing to deal with.

Of course, everyone else would be able to be up to date with all the news instantly, as they would always hear them from the radio. And, assuming you also had the ability to "tune the station" that you can hear, you would be able to listen to music or interesting shows all the time. This would be good and fun.

Would I miss the ability that everyone else has? This is a very interesting question and I don't know the answer.

But, I would think that if someone gave me a wearable FM radio that I could turn on/off at will, I would think that I certainly would accept that.

Again, I'm sorry if this is not a good analogy and as all analogies this doesn't really capture all the nuances of course, but would this be similar at least in theory?