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

Would this mean that a person that makes 50k/y most pay 20% of their income while a billion$ company still pays 10k? I don't think this helps with wealth inequality.

It's not even about graphics it's about load time on HDD. Which turns out didn't benefit all that much. I can see customers being much more annoyed at a longer load time than a big install size as this has become pretty common.

Why help people when you can just get rid of them instead /s


The goal is to improve life for law abiding citizens. Removing these from society is helping all the people in society. 2 birds with 1 stone.


As long as the society won't decide you are to be removed from the society, too.

At which point I'm sure you will comply and decide to sacrifice yourself for the society, you will, right?

What has happened in your life that you are so devoid of empathy?


I would not be above the law if that's what you are asking.

>so devoid of empathy?

I'm using my empathy to improve the lives of the many people who have to deal with people dying or having their lives ruined by these drugs. Improving the lives of people who have to deal with dysfunctional people on drugs. There are also second order affects that many more people are suffering from.


So you have no issue with "the final solution regarding the jewish question" then? Because that's exactly, what they were doing, they weren't doing anything illegal.


It's not helping the addicts. Nor is it helping the people who don't want to live under a brutally oppressive and cruel regime.


Addicts are a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the greater good of the populace. For how much heroine can ruin people's lives I do not think it is oppressive or cruel to punish people with the loss of a life in perpetuating such a life ruining substance. But it is still helping those people due to the benefits of addicts no longer existing.


Personally I'd be more inclined to sacrifice people advocating cruel, oppressive policies for the greater good if we should consider sacrifice someone, as I consider those attitudes far more harmful.

This is the problem with advocating policies that sacrifices anyone: Someone else will want to sacrifice you


“Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make”


Is my blue your blue? Yes but only if we see the same blue.


That's what the study addresses (even if inconclusively).

The question is how "but they didn't include color blind people" has any relevance to the subject.

For color blind people we already know that they don't see the same colors, so the answer for them is trivial. They can't even decode the same input, so nobody expects them to have the same color qualia as someone who does.

The purpose of the study is to examine the color of people with same typical vision capabilities. So regarding the objection, it's like some team doing a pitch perception study and someone asks why the deaf weren't included!


Canada never includes taxes either so that's an extra 10% to 15% for most provinces.


I feel not being understood when pronunciation is off is more of a France french issue. You will be understood eitherway in Canada (given you speak with french Canadians). But I sometime have difficulty being understood by frenchmans, less so with other french speaking cultures


It would be like a speaker who can’t distinguish the uh sound in “but” with the ih sound in “bit”. Is it really the native English speaker’s fault if he can’t understand that personal dialect?

France’s vowel inventory is bigger than (or just as big as) English’s, and it has a lot more homophones. I imagine all the context goes toward disambiguating the actual homophones and not the arbitrary sets of words foreigners can’t pronounce because they don’t want to learn the accents (the system is not that hard and completely predictable).


This is already one of the proposed solutions. Although you would have to state a specific date as not to mislead consumers. I would then have to decide if paying 80$ for a game I won't be able to play in the next 5 years is worth it.


This might happen to so extent but a big part of the market is single player games, so those companies would also lose a large portion of their profit


Ok, but the context of the article (which I quoted) is multi player games with a single player mode. Of course single player games don’t need and often don’t have a server, so whether or not they make up a large part of the market is irrelevant here.


But you won't be able to access some public servers for a game you paid for without the account.


Well now i gotta find a way to play this


There's a copy available on the Internet Archive [1].

1. https://archive.org/details/d64_Madam_Fifis_Whore-House_Adve...


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

Search: