Viewing profile — goodrubyist
goodrubyist
HN member- Joined
- Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 12:21 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 153
- Public activity
- 51 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About goodrubyist
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #49076587
Wikipedia and a few other sites I saw say otherwise for the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service Wouldn't make much sense otherwise.
-
comment
Comment #49076556
All of it, if it was presented for me to accept when signing up for this account. Don't remember explicitly. As I said to others, most of it is boilerplate, so you just learn to sk…
-
comment
Comment #49063243
They're usually not that complicated. And most of them say usually almost the same things with some edits thrown here and there. E.g. compare the disclaimer of warranty/liability s…
-
comment
Comment #49063219
I skim or read all the time, and so should people -- but ultimately they're adults and if they want to agree to them without reading, it's their choice (they shouldn't expect to la…
-
comment
Comment #49063198
I'm an average person and I read them all the time. It's not usually 400 pages long. More like 3-4 pages. If a person genuinely can't understand, they should not use the service. T…
-
comment
Comment #49061046
Agreeing to terms and contracts without reading or at least skimming them is not responsible adult behavior and should not be used as a model for legislation, no matter how many pe…
-
comment
Comment #49061020
[flagged]
-
comment
Comment #47637452
it's basically the American mindset vs the European one (or anyone not in the US?).
-
comment
Comment #46558971
He's very likely being defensive.
-
comment
Comment #46270930
I approve every command myself, and no, it's still much faster than doing it myself.
-
comment
Comment #45480458
But I like the general fallacy behind this that people fall for all the time: taking the past value of a variable as a complete predictor of its future value (applies to other stuf…
-
comment
Comment #43372779
yes, it's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
-
comment
Comment #41265766
If you're using a heuristic, it can be fine, but only if you also know that it's only a heuristic, instead of thinking that it's truth and lambasting anyone who suggests otherwise.…
-
comment
Comment #40038445
They really don't have any money.
-
comment
Comment #38432872
Yes, and he is not a president.
-
comment
Comment #36486841
*typo, I meant SSRN.
-
comment
Comment #36473108
That's not the argument for textualism. You can read law review articles and papers on SSRI to find more.
-
comment
Comment #36458629
You should really look into how judges interpret laws (rules, basically). There are two schools I know of: purposivism and textualism (I agree with the latter and it doesn't take i…
-
comment
Comment #35894876
so many butts!
-
comment
Comment #35855036
Were those startups that went out of business did so because of their stacks/architecture, or are you confusing correlation with causation? And, there is a good reason people shy a…
-
comment
Comment #35480936
[flagged]
-
comment
Comment #35453052
Do you have any evidence that "Most people who word things that way don't use the term "males" in a similar way". I think it's highly likely that you do not have enough (anecdotal)…
- story
-
comment
Comment #33399761
Trying to influence the racial make-up of a class is, let's admit it, loathsome racial engineering.
-
comment
Comment #32917499
That's not how it works at least in the US, but I don't know about Germany. SCOTUS claims that the judicial system is not for reviewing all the acts passed for constitutionality, b…