Wow - there's few better examples of the fine line between crazy and genius.
I can't tell if he's using the plannedchaos accounts on various sites to seriously defend himself by proxy, or is it that he thinks the Internet is a load of pixels on a screen that unlike some of us he just doesn't take it very seriously?
Edit: somebody commented below that Scott is now a professional troll, and I'm inclined to think that they're probably right!
There's nothing stopping you from registering a new user, using the "about" section at https://hackernews.hn/user?id=dhmholley to point to that new user, and perhaps even pointing back at 'dmholley from the new user. Your name would be changed, and everyone would know it.
The only thing that wouldn't transfer would be your valuable internet points.
And unfortunately it often is used that way, by people who don't understand that animal testing would have caught the birth defects had it been tested on pregnant animals (advocating, if anything, for more thorough animal testing, not for animal testing's ineffectiveness). Of course people aren't interested in this, they're just after the conclusion that supports their preconceived ideas.
It was tested extensively on animals before release, and even after it was suspected of causing deformities, tests on pregnant dogs, cats, monkeys, hamsters and chickens were done and failed to produce deformities.
Eventually they showed up in a particular strain of rabbits.
"Lasagna [157] commented that once a chemical is known to cause birth defects in humans, an animal species or strain can usually be found that will replicate the response, but that this is not the same as prospectively predicting this response."
> tests were done and failed to produce deformities.
Lucey and Behrman. 1963. Thalidomide: effect upon pregnancy in the rhesus monkey. Science 139:1295-1296.
Hendrickx, Axelrod and Clayborn. 1966. 'Thalidomide' syndrome in baboons. Nature 210 (5039):958-959.
"Delahunt and Lassen induced typically malformed foetuses in four of seven pregnant Cynomolgus monkeys which were treated after implantation had already occurred"
Hendrickx, A. G., and L. Newman. 1973. Appendicular skeletal and visceral malformations induced by thalidomide in bonnet monkeys. Teratology 7 (2):151-159. doi:10.1002/tera.1420070206.
Please note the year of the articles. The studies with monkeys were made after the drug was distributed in many countries and thousands of babies without legs and arms started to born, not before.
Let suposse that a mass murder kills 5000 babies, and mutilates other 5000. There will be a trial, right?, this is serious stuff. A complex trial with thousands of victims waiting for justice.
Will the lawyer of the victims, jump in this legal battlefield like going for a picnic, and show triumphant their one and only proof?("rabbits, didn't feel the need to investigate further because science is evil").
Will someone tell the police, "stop doing interviews, replicating the crime scene, looking for witness, asking the experts, we have one hint!. Dismiss the other proofs"?
Do you understand know, why a lot of work and experiments have to be done? Because there was dozens of trials in 46 countries and you need to know the truth without the slightest shadow of a doubt.
It's not offensive so much as you're generalising from personal experience to assert that Christian friendships are somehow qualitatively different from friendships as found in the Kabbalistic or Western Buddhist traditions, which is clearly a ridiculous thing to say.
If "hipster" engagement with faith is superficial or driven by fashion trends, there's nothing special they'll find in Christianity as compared to any other faith structure that will make the experience of engaging with that faith any less ephemeral or inauthentic.
I hope the source isn't too horrible. I was basically a complete javascript novice when I started coding the game. If I were to write it again I'd probably do it very differently, though I still have a lot to learn.
You finished it, which is by far the most important thing. Without that, it doesn't matter what the code looks like because you'd have achieved nothing.
My first Flash game that I wrote in two weeks had some god awful copy pasted code that made me embarrassed to show anyone. But it made six figures over the years and launched what turned out to be a viable career in game development (I've never had a real job).
Code quality is important to work on, but it's just there to help you with the primary goal: shipping something cool.
It astounds me how people will happily let companies off the hook for causing negative externalities, while simultaneously blaming the government for failing to regulate them effectively and decrying the regulation in the first place.
"Remember that humans operate companies and governments alike. Except governments use force and companies are subject to it."
He who wields the weapon is responsible for the results. Government wields the power of coercion, thus the results of coercion is their responsibility - and the shared responsibility of those that consent to such government. Yes, the lobbyists who abuse the coercive power of government share the blame - but so do you, if you support the existence of this coercive power and their ability to abuse it. If somebody tricks you into shooting yourself in the foot by claiming your foot is a space alien intending to eat you - he is to blame for tricking you, and you are to blame for being an idiot. You can say we should get the world rid of the people who are willing to trick idiots for their own profit, but I say it may be much more practical to try and be idiots less frequently. Because the former is not very likely to happen anytime soon.
Tolerance for people is not the same as tolerance for speech, or tolerance for actions. You are not a victim if people disapprove of your bigotry - your speech may be protected, but you are not protected from the consequences of your speech (and that includes the opinions of others).
People will find any reason to view themselves as victims when something they do or a person they agree with is criticised. That people are crying about "discrimination", because someone who actively worked to oppress people was rightly criticised for those actions, quite frankly astounds me.
Besides which, people aren't just criticising him for seeking to strip one the basic and fundamental liberties a modern society gives its citizens, purely on the basis of who they are (which he is entitled to do). They're criticising Mozilla, a company which strives towards the principles of openness and inclusiveness, for picking someone to represent them who doesn't represent the values of the organisation.
Inclusiveness means not discriminating against people based on who they are. It's the very simple idea that white people, black people, gay people and straight people are all people - they are entitled the same rights and the same protections.
Inclusiveness doesn't mean that you have to tolerate a person's actions. Damn right I'm going to criticise someone whose actions hurt people - they're not entitled to have me agree with their "conscience", nor are they entitled to my support for their actions.
Do you understand how discrimination against a person and condemnation of things that a person does are separate concepts?
Are you seriously suggesting that people should be tolerant of intolerance? And are you really bemoaning the fact that it is becoming less socially acceptable to be a hateful bigot in public?
Action against those in positions of power who cause harm to others is meaningfully different to action against those who are already victimised. The first is a movement for social change that increases the net good in the world, the second is simple oppression.
In the same sense, one might say that overthrowing a fascist dictator is more morally justified than overthrowing a peaceful democracy to install said dictatorship. Both are violence against a government, but they exist in different moral contexts.
Aside from the fact that the Daily Mail is a tabloid which makes its money primarily from inflaming right-wing sensibilities while misreporting or fabricating stories, this seems like a particularly ludicrous assertion considering that it would imply a far higher rate of welfare fraud than actually happens.
Could you tell us how much money it's possible to claim from the system, and how much a realistic minimal standard of living might actually be? If you do your research honestly, you might find it illuminating.
