Well, you're responding to him, so questions or suggestions are probably better than speculation.
My comment about vitriol was more directed at the HN commenters than Eric himself. Really, I think a discussion about web infrastructure is more interesting than a hatefest on Google. Thankfully, the balance seems to have shifted since I posted my top-level comment.
> Well, you're responding to him, so questions or suggestions are probably better than speculation.
I suspect the author is unaware of their other blindspots. It's not 2001 anymore. Holding yourself out as a hosting provider comes with some baseline expectations.
That does not sound far fetched to me at all. The nationwide average for teachers is $70k. Surviving on a $80k-$100k/year pension at retirement with full health insurance coverage for you and your spouse for the rest of your life sounds pretty reasonable.
Countries are inconsistent in what names they do and do not accept.
Want a name that is offensive in your language? Your country probably won't let you do that, but some other one might, and yours still needs to accept that name as valid.
You can't just go to another country and change your name there, but if you have dual citizenship, you can usually change it in either one, and the other one needs to respect that.
I had a former coworker who had just (legally) changed his entire name in order to fully separate himself from his family when he started with the company. (This was in the US.) It made the onboarding kind of weird, because he originally gave us one name but then when he started had an entirely different one.
You sure can! But that doesn't mean it won't cause you problems.
For example, if you're male, and decide to change your name to Sarah, you totally can - but don't be surprised when people assume you're a woman.
And there are many countries, of which you are unaware, that do have pretty strict laws about what you are and aren't allowed to name your children. Iceland is the one that springs to mind off the top of my head. As I recall, Germany also has some limitations.
People's own opinions about what their name is is not a "non-issue", shitty-ass governments or not. Declaring a people's opinions about names stupid and irrelevant (or even illegal) is one of the many ways majorities oppress or even commit slow genocide against minorities.
> Declaring a people's opinions about names stupid and irrelevant (or even illegal) is one of the many ways majorities oppress or even commit slow genocide against minorities.
My point was governments do this all the time and it is a far cry from fascism. Elsewhere in the thread, it is mentioned that often times you have to compromise when registering a name in a different country (for instance, if the language does not contain a phoneme used in your name). In that case, you have to conform to the country's culture and language. Under that lens, banning names that violate cultural norms is not so crazy.
There are reasonable regulations and unreasonable regulation. The idea that since some regulation exist, it would be totally the allow any other rule is absurd.
Yes, people (specifically women) with strong opinion on the suffix of their name exist and proper solution of government is to butt off that decision. This is no the norm worth keeping by force.
The relevant laws in many Western countries today exist so that children don't get saddled with patently stupid names by their parents (see also: Elon Musk and his kids).
The best human poker players are able to calculate pot odds in their heads. Much of gambling is understanding when the risk of any given bet is actually worth it. Reading people and playing the other players is less important than understanding the likelihood of drawing the card you want and how that compares to the percentage of profit you’ll make on a bet.
The actions generally do not seem to match the words, and seem to point to a general trend of deregulation and lack of oversight (as the administration has said they would do, and especially in the crypto space has essentially stopped prosecuting crimes)
Going up-thread, here's the original claim under contention:
>> will be to not be overseen by the SEC in some important capacity.
Your articles don't dispute this.
As for whether oversight will be "weaker" and more de-regulated, maybe.
1. There's a headcount reduction. At worst, there's a quote that some really experienced watchdogs are out the door. Hard to tell until we get outcomes.
2. As for withdrawal of proposals, look closer.
> Although most observers doubted that the current Commission would adopt these proposals
Which makes it sound like the proposals were just withdrawn for later submittal and new discussion. Footnote #1 goes into how this isn't really unprecedented, citing similar withdrawals (or resets) under the Biden admin.
Sure, I am just saying the comment about "hunting crooks more aggressively" seems to run counter to their anti-regulation stance, and their active lack of hunting crooks.
I have no expertise in the field whatsoever but can't help but wonder if it is at all related to our consumption of cooked foods. At the very least it reduces the incidence of parasites but I am sure there are myriad benefits beyond treating foods for longevity through methods like smoking.
I have zero expertise either, but I find this field fascinating. Cooking makes it easier to chew so we can devote less of our skulls to chewing muscles. At birth our skulls are barely small enough to fit through the birth canal in one orientation, and one of the prerequisites for a baby to be born is that it’s facing head down and shoulders rotated into that orientation. Maybe cooking is beneficial because it allowed us to have a bigger braincase but also it gave us access to more nutrients from the same food.
