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

Open meeting laws say people are welcome to be there.

Constitution protects polite free speech, unambiguously.


Not talking specifically to this case, but if you're loud and disruptive, you can prevent others from exercising their free speech. The meetings do need some rules.


It's not disingenuous. Clapping politely is Constitutionally protected free speech.

Rule of law on violating an unlawful request in a situation like this one is not complex. It's the same as when an officer asks you to stop filming.


> Clapping politely is Constitutionally protected free speech

So is clapping impolitely, and yet here we are.


That's not quite the lesson.

Earnings did come, and the outcome of the internet include Google, Amazon, and others -- several of the ten biggest companies in the world.

In 2000, there was no sane way to predict who the success stories versus failures would be, timeliness, or otherwise.

AI will be a big change. We don't know how big, when, or who the losers and winners will be yet. Everything could be grossly overvalued or undervalued. We'll only know in hindsight.


Has anybody worked out quantitatively whether the total dot-com boom was a decent investment in hindsight?


There is no shot that current AI tech comes even close to being as influential as the Internet. What we have right now is useless for getting anything productive done because it's so unreliable.


Flatten plus debt is bad.

Debt presumes future growth.


You're a racist.

The way to tell between that and factual / culturally-fluent: were you able to any strengths of other cultures? Weaknesses of your own?

Or did you go off on an (in this case ill-informed) rant about "they bad"?

The way to cure it is a mixture of reading: business books on culture (like Meyer and Hofstede) and NATO ones. Those are places people need to work together, as opposed to woke ideology.

Then, application. Travel is good here.


You do not get to be stupid here.

I can support each statement:

A significant number of cybercrime today is committed by people from the former Soviet Bloc.

A significant number of intellectual property theft is committed by people from East Asia.

A significant number of rape in Europe is committed by people from Southeast Asia.

A significant number of managers here, with roots in India, only hire people with roots in India.

A significant number of forcibly retracted academic papers are by Asians, even in journals with major ownership stakes by the Chinese government. In contrast, a significant number of voluntarily retracted academic papers are by Westerners.

A significant number of Medicare and Medicaid fraud convictions in the past twenty years have been of people from the former Soviet Bloc and Asia.

A significant number of scams defrauding US victims remotely and in person, in the past decade, have been committed by crime rings out of West Africa, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe.

That’s not racist. It is unfortunate reality.

If you blindly hire employees without regard to their cultural background, which includes ethnic origin and national identities, even religious beliefs, you are doing a disservice to your organization and your hires.

These former Apple employees were set up to fail by multiple layers of management that did nothing to curb theft, instill loyalty, and train these people that Asian beliefs about intellectual property are considered disloyalty here.


The problem is your last two paragraphs. The rest is, as you say, unfortunate reality. But in your last two paragraphs, you go from "a significant number of problems are caused by people from these places" to "you should treat all people from these places with suspicion". That's where it turns into racism.


I appreciate your comment, but disagree where you label discernment and cultural literacy as racism.


I think these people do have our interests at heart, but that's largely irrelevant. Their point is that capitalist free markets don't let them act on that.

Capitalism and democracy are becoming obsolete. It's not clear what's next.


Neither existence nor nonexistence is obvious. Ergo, differences of opinion. Militants on both sides are problematic. I strongly dislike Dawkins, in the same way as I do people knocking on my door trying to convert me to any other religion.

At least the zealots who knockon my door. I've had a few good conversations.

Ditto for LLM sentience. We have no evidence either way.


No, Numerical Recipes isn't better. Or worse. It's a different book on a different topic, with there topic very clearly advertised in the title.

It's a series of... numerical recipes. Nice descriptions of many numerical algorithms sufficient to use them.

It's not focused on physics. It's also not rigorous.

The Sussman / Wisdom reference is rigorous.

Why would you post about a book you haven't read?


lol. lmao even.


Should be modernized to Python or similar.

In 2026, I don't want to do numerical programming in C. That was fine 30 years ago, but today, I expect to have garbage collection or to be able to multiply a matrix as A×B.


If that's what you want, use Matlab. High-performance scientific computing is still using C, C++ +/- CUDA, or Fortran, with Rust a growing segment.


Different strokes for different fokes.

In 2026 I don't want to use a slow interpreted non-typed language like Python.

C++ (for example) has excellent super fast matrix libraries where you can do AxB.


License is a big deal, and not just for cost and openness, but also for practical use in pages like docker, ci/cd pipeline, cloud deployments, or other places licenses need to be dynamic.


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

Search: