There is no line. Expression is turing complete. That you might not like something I say does not have any effect on my right to say it as a human being.
Obviously the names are tongue in cheek jabs. There's no language called Auschwitz, afaik, and even if there was, it would have as much right to exist as Java or Python or whatever.
You don't get to tell people what to name things just because you're offended. You get to be offended, that's it.
> You don't get to tell people what to name things just because you're offended.
Sure you do, and you get to say your reasons too, refuse to adopt something based on those reasons and try to persuade other people and organizations to accept your reasons. You even get to apply mild sanctions - like not buying things from them or discouraging others from interacting with the person who did the thing that offended you.
You just don't get to forcibly compel anyone. If they disagree with your reasons and don't care about upsetting you, you can't make them change.
It seems that a lot of people want not just freedom to offend with their speech, but also freedom from the reasonable consequences of offending (including responding speech), which is even less coherent than wanting freedom from offensive speech.
This, thank you. So many people seem to think that freedom of speech == freedom from consequences. The reality is that freedom of speech == freedom from government consequences.
Kind of. That's the law of course. But freedom of speech, in America at least, is also a principle of our Republic. We should all strive to encourage this freedom. To attempt to quash someone from speaking their mind is morally wrong, and is actually un-American.
Irrelevant, since he's correct. I've actually known an ex-Zomato employee who's said the same thing, this is the first time I've heard strangers mention it though.
Upvotes do not determine if information is true or not, and there's plenty of people out there who aren't the least bit concerned with whether or not HN upvotes them.
Tangentially, I don't think outsourcing is really that big of a deal. LOTS of companies do it, and it's easy to get bitten by it, but it's also easy to check over what they bring back, as well. I'm not trying to make a case for excusing this incident, as they could have very easily dedicated some dev time to quality check the code (if it's the code that they outsourced in the first place, which we don't know for sure or not) so there's really no excuse for it. People in the states outsource to india, people in india outsource to africa or south america, people in africa probably have some place they outsource to, maybe china or something. It's an economical oddity, not a moral dilemma, imo.
If they are concerned about 300 families from passengers from a stricken airliner coming after them for billions, then yes, yes it is.
If they are concerned about the FAA restricting drone use altogether, then yes. (they've already required drones be registered. If they're aircraft that cant be operated safely then FAA can ground them all, and much of the world follows our FAA's rulings)
A civilian UAS & manned aircraft collision resulting in loss of life is statistically inevitable. How DJI fares in court by showing it exhausted all means to prevent their products from doing harm when the unfortunate does occur, is something they can be proactive with.
Guessing that China's government regulation of drones is a lot more relaxed than the US, in which case it becomes a market-driven approach - it's bad PR to have drones disrupting flights, so the business is investing private capital to prevent further incidents harming public perception of drones until the law can catch up.
Ford doesn't need to put out bounties because there's adequate regulation to punish drunk drivers. However, in the early days of motoring there was definitely private investment into shaping the discussion around cars - jaywalking was invented by automakers and heavily promoted to shift the role of roads from being primarily for pedestrians to primarily for cars: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/04/invention-jay...
No one complains about cars and wants to restrict them the same way drones are treated. DJI has an interest in making sure that their drones follow the law. The entire drone industry and their lawful users also have an interest in making sure that no one is giving drone pilots a bad reputation. DJI is part of this and wants to spend their money to make sure that people know that unlawful flights are not tolerated by any drone users. I don't think anyone would be complaining if Ford put out rewards for information on hit'n'run drivers.
Not quite - we restrict cars even more then we restrict drones.
They also happen to be necessary to the operation of our society. Drones are little more then toys. If all drones were grounded tomorrow, life would go on. If all cars stopped tomorrow, half the country would starve to death by June.
I'm not really sure I understand the problem here. If anything, it seems like a little bit of corporate responsibility (in a broad sense) is a good thing, no?
I almost said Javascript out of ubiquity, but it'd be a grave insult to the plane. Java is a good answer, maybe C#, maybe Python. The language needs to be one that gets a lot of work done, and is reliable.
What's a language that's just always got your back in a situation? That's the F/A18.
Well, your browser info and metadata have now been sold to third parties for a few pennies, so I'd say mission successful for site owner.
Are people actually still this naive? Reading HN users makes me feel like I'm trapped in the 80s where the internet was a magical mystery that nobody really understood. It's about 40 years too late to just assume the average trash website is actually a meaningful statement about something, or a viable product of some sort.
99.9999999% are just junk. The big ones, you already know about.
Tesla stock is speculative. You can't really compare Tesla to its specific market slice without losing much of the big picture.
The car market is a huge market, so there is a lot of room for Tesla to grow. Tesla is at a junction point right now. It is a strong player on the Luxury segment (eg: Porsche territory), and they seem to be going for the Premium segment (eg: BMW territory) which is what their valuation expect it to go.
It looks like the natural way to go, especially considering the investment in SuperCharger network. Except when you consider the scale of that market. Tesla would need to be able to scale by an order of magnitude (think dealer and garage network too) and a huge chunk of those purchases are fleet purchases. Once the competition enter the premium electric market ( all the premium brand have a 2020 target date, which of course means potentially nothing ), Tesla will need to be ready to have a new generation of all its car ready and be ready to do refreshes on a regular basis.
Even that context is not the full context. Automatic driving is coming which will change the relationship of people to car owning.
Tesla is a growth company, if you don't think they can go bigger you should short them.
They will need a network of places to buy and repair. There are something like 15 showrooms in the whole of UK, half of them in London. 7 Service Centers.
A then Tesla.com lists the BlueWater as a showroom. It had 2 cars last time I was there, both in the same colour.
That's not nearly enough to sell a popular car in the premium segment.
note: I understand that Dealer is something special in the US. I use the term liberally to mean "Some places that sells Tesla car". I believe that the hate of Dealer in the US is not so fundamental that they would buy a 30K car online only. Hell Apple is doing great with Apple Store with the opposite approach and nothing they sell is close to the same level of financial commitment.
Obviously the names are tongue in cheek jabs. There's no language called Auschwitz, afaik, and even if there was, it would have as much right to exist as Java or Python or whatever.
You don't get to tell people what to name things just because you're offended. You get to be offended, that's it.