Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dobs_bob's commentslogin

Isn't Brave backed by Peter Thiel? That alone would make me not trust it but they also have baked in crypto and other weird stuff.

Here is a handy list of things that Thiel invested in

PayPal, Spotify, Stripe, LinkedIn, Airbnb, Facebook, ResearchGate, Flexport, Nubank, Rippling, Asana, Luft, Tesla, Microsoft, Apple, SpaceX

You can’t trust anything these days!


I don’t think you can write off Apple or Microsoft just because Thiel made some investment in them.

Being the VC to a company’s round B, C, and D (adding up to maybe 40% ownership/control) is VERY different from simply throwing some money at a trillion dollar company to see some returns.


It was when they hired Ellen Pao for me


Not to mention Musk just being a ghoul in general. Mocking the disabled is something I can't let go.


Did he know the person was disabled when he made the comment?


He said no. He said he wasn’t aware of all the information and also had been given some incorrect information on top of that. He tweeted this, of course and met to apologize and order to keep him on. So no, not yes.


Yes but it doesn't matter.


Yes


Where have you been? The man lives to troll.


I read parent as sarcasm.


One of the symptoms of autism is the inability to recognize sarcasm (<http://www.healthcentral.com/autism/c/1443/162610/autism-sar...>) without the help of idiotic, illiterate signals like "/s".


I'd argue he lives to be seen as a troll.

As an actual troll he hasn't really done much but post tired memes until buying a large stake in Twitter. Time will tell whether he's actually going to do anything interesting with this stake but based on track record I'm going with no.

Most of what qualifies him as a troll could be gleaned from a ten minute crash course in /b.


Well, is 'qualifying as a troll' really about appealing to the connoisseurs, the academy of trolling experts?

Or is it about making the most people the angriest?

It's like arguing about whether McDonald's is good food.

Some people think that suggesting an Edit button is telling.

"Here is the only imaginable use of an edit button. You post a tweet saying “I love puppies” with a picture of a cute puppy. A thousand people retweet your tweet; a thousand more quote-tweet it with comments like “what a good boi!” A week later, you edit the tweet to say “I think the Nazis got a bad rap,” with a picture of Hitler. Years later, a professor is denied tenure because someone digs through her old tweets to find that she called Hitler “a good boi.” This is absolutely the only purpose for the edit button, and oh man does accomplished Twitter troll Elon Musk know that. "

(Matthew Levine last week)


There are fixes to this though.

Limit the time the tweet is editable, and postpone publishing tweets until that timer has run out.

Or show a history of what the post has looked like.


The former would completely negate the point of editing vs. deleting which one can already do.

The latter... perhaps, I guess? But then why bother? Are people so desperate to keep their internet points proxies by retweets and likes that they can't fathom reposting if there was an egregious error?

To me the whole exercise is one of malicious populism. It's an idea that appears liberty-generating on the surface and is used to gather a mob but has no real utility.


Enough people want the feature, whether you see the point or not.


Or just make edit button append text at below tweet, immediately visible in contrast to next tweet in chain.


Why not both? If you want to edit posts after the initial deadline, that could be the next step.


Yeah, normal editing for X minutes, then append only seems to be good solution.


You missed the sarcasm.


Dog whistle for what?


There's no unified "anti-fascist" movement, but the common theme among the self-described anti-fascists I know is the belief that physical violence has a legitimate place in democratic processes.

Frankly they remind me of a line by Nietzsche about staring too long into an abyss.


> the belief that physical violence has a legitimate place in democratic processes.

That's not exactly the point, though. We are not in a democratic process (unless by democracy you mean giving away powers to congress), and our society is very violent towards the most vulnerable segments of it.

Do you think giving back just a tiny portion of that daily violence we face is immoral or wrong? How is it justified for people to threaten us with guns if we don't pay rent to some arbitrary landlord or to detain us if we dare steal food for basic survival, yet attacking bank windows or punching an actual genocidal nazi in the face is seen as violent?!


I guess fascists who want to prove that they can render their swastika on an Antix machine no matter what the developers do.


Communists and anarchists who are willing to use force against their opponents. (this is based on both media reports and first-hand experiences in Portland, Oregon)


If you mean against the ruling class threatening a million species and the neonazis promoting eradication of many branches of our species, then yes i'm certainly advocating to stop these people by any means necessary.


It's like they all take the same crappy HR seminar from 20 years ago and haven't updated their skills since. Times have changed.


No, times have not changed. People are still human, employee problems are the same as ever.

HR was never good at dealing with this, that’s not a new thing.


People haven't changed, times have; the market currently favors employees in a way that pushes poor HR policies from "annoying" to "people call your bluff".


Climate change, the end is near. Why spend the rest of your (short) life working for some micromanaging slave-driver.


Imagine an Elon Musk company being total douchebags!


Shouldn't they get rid the white supremacy subreddits first?


How long does it take the "safety driver" to react at 65mph?


Per TFA, they're limited to 30 MPH and will not have safety drivers.

And obviously the launch is conditioned on regulators' belief that the system can handle reacting, to a degree of safety that's similar to human drivers: otherwise they wouldn't get the permit. The reaction time of safety drivers is not what this approval pivots on.

Though obviously the interesting question is: how did the company and the regulators get to this level of confidence in the system's safety


They are referring to the multiple parts in 'TFA' talking about Waymo using safety drivers and a 65mph limit.


Ah, thanks for clarifying. That makes way more sense.

BTW, you seem to have been reading TFA as some sort of snark. It's a pretty well-established bit of internet jargon that's (at least in my experience) more winking than aggressive at this pt.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: