91–100 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This site is for technical and business discussion. Where did you get that from? This site is for things that are interesting. This story is so unusual that it's interesting. Meta subthreads are not interesting.
I would have thought the word "Hacker" in the title would give away the fact that yes, it is in fact a site for technical discussions.
So to hear that, on a hunch, a judge can give a newborn to a couple that had expressed no previous interest in having kids, wtf. It's a nice story, and I'm glad that it worked out so well for everyone. But for me it really underlines how fucked up the system really is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ergo it has everything to do with HN.
Yeah, "what belongs on HN" is basically "what HNers upvote".
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
If it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, it's totally cool.
This was hard for me to read. I spent four years waiting to adopt a child.Did almost a year of training and home visits, then waited. And waited. Why does it take so long? Because we selfishly insisted that we'd only take one ortwo children. The social workers were not subtle in letting us know that we were selfish to not want a sibling group of 4 or 5(?!) kids all at once. They made it absolutely clear that we could…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Figuring out effective social solutions. The article is a great example of the judge cutting through red tape, a gay couple getting a child without having to fight social crapola tooth and nail, and culminates with a gay marriage which couldn't have previously taken place but is now possible. Plus the couple used the marriage as an opportunity to give some closure to their adopted child. I think it is brilliant on se…
But where is the hacking? The judge just used her prorrogative to make (something great) happen.
The judge was in a position to make an exception. You can have 500 friends outraged at the injustice of bias against gay couples in adoption. Odds are poor that any of them can really do anything about it. And a wedding is possibly the only good excuse to request a judges services for a feel good reunion. Judges are supposed to be impartial. It is generally inappropriate to contact them for hugs and the like.
There is quite a lot of brilliant stuff in this article. I am sorry you do not see it.
Sound reasonable to me. That judge is probably a parent. I suspect most parents understand: if we waited to be "ready", nobody would ever be a parent. Conventional parents get months and months of notice. If they're like me, they're still nowhere close to "ready". It's terrifying. But you, and these guys, and everyone else just do what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years.
"But you, and these guys, and everyone else just do what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years." I don't mean to scare you, but that is the mother of all sampling bias (to quote xkcd). The parents that don't do so well, generally have a smaller chance of being grandparents. I'm sure all of you reading this will do just fine though. I also need to say that that judge was awesome.
Now you have a lot of not so great parents spawning at an alarming rate.
Sound reasonable to me. That judge is probably a parent. I suspect most parents understand: if we waited to be "ready", nobody would ever be a parent. Conventional parents get months and months of notice. If they're like me, they're still nowhere close to "ready". It's terrifying. But you, and these guys, and everyone else just do what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years.
"But you, and these guys, and everyone else just do what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years." I don't mean to scare you, but that is the mother of all sampling bias (to quote xkcd). The parents that don't do so well, generally have a smaller chance of being grandparents. I'm sure all of you reading this will do just fine though. I also need to say that that judge was awesome.
Some people would argue that those who don't do well as parents are more likely to have grandkids...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a shame really. Someone's open-minded curiosity shouldn't be cast aside because of a hypothesis that is politically incorrect.
Supposing that people are recruited into homosexuality by gay parents is not precisely described as "open-minded curiosity". If we are going to be open-mindedly curious, then let's ask questions like what is the basis for imagining that being gay is a choice?