harmful

Maybe not the best way to get the issue out, but we are talking about it and it wasn't especially harmful. Mission accomplished?

I feel tempted to just answer the question using the Betteridge Law of Headlines: Why is git pull considered harmful? It isn't.

"We're announcing Go version 1, or Go 1 for short" I foresee the next version being considered harmful.

They were classified as more harmful in a study by professor David Nutt in the UK. He was then sacked as Government adviser.

It would by useless at most, but not particularly harmful. This is my perception of this, and I am writing it hoping to avoid a thread full of heated debate based on false assumptions.

It's pretty well established that giving people benign sexual outlets is an effective way to prevent them from seeking harmful ones. I mean, yeah, don't run a TOR exit node because of the legal risk - that makes sense.

If a company does something clearly distasteful and harmful to others, staying quiet and voting with your feet is not a good idea. This should be obvious to everyone.

Another large group of people were hopelessly addicted to very harmful drugs. People who exploited this group were the most powerful - they would have drugs smuggled in, then build an army of addicts who would do their bidding to get the next fix.

But they need to be dealt with in narrow ways focused on the actual problems, not in blunderbuss fashion that is short-sighted and, in the long run, harmful to us all.

This approach can be harmful to compatibility because web content comes to rely upon these vendor-prefixed names. Going forward ...

But I think it's harmful to impose that view on others. If you have no choice but to work or be discarded, then, when the value you can provide via work is less than that required to maintain your life, you have no choice but to attempt to indenture yourself.

It would be one thing to see someone write a legitimate article on why they think the move to JS frameworks is harmful and/or the benefits of using plain JS, and for that to make it to the front page. I'd be interested in that perspective.

There seems to be a general lack of understanding here on HN that money laundering is incredibly harmful to society. It allows organised crime to operate with great ease.

This is a very specific problem that is harmful to the industry and to all the non-booth babes out there. The OP goes on to make some suggestions on how to work towards fixing the problem, but please, if you're going to comment on this, make sure you understand the actual main point first.

It is true: If they only compile these transactional records and don't do anything with them, and they faithfully honor this distinction, then the scale of the actual surveillance is not necessarily harmful, although it feels heavy. That's a big if.

Every time you drive your car you're spreading harmful chemicals into the air. Every factory or industrial operation spreads harmful chemicals into the air and water.

Something that is not actively harmful and will increase their fitness, even in a small way. You may think you are showing people a better way, but you are really giving people nowhere to turn for support, because everyone always tries to show a better way no matter what the original way was.

In addition to computer hacking/unauthorized access laws having unusually high maximum sentences vs other more more harmful offences.

I'm not saying that frat culture isn't harmful, nor would I dare to guess why women are underrepresented among development professionals; but defending a thesis with such grossly false assertions can only harm it.

Some companies have unlimited vacation policies, but unless the culture is unusually positive, these policies are generally harmful in that they require all vacation to be justified in some way. In other words, there is no way to make a meaningful universal statement about vacation.

The FDA rules are in place for very good reasons, namely to prevent snake-oil salesmen and other unscrupulous merchandisers from foisting their -- potentially harmful -- products upon an unsuspecting public. I would much rather have FDA clearance for medical products and devices than the alternative that you seem to be proposing.

Hell, governments to be misled into devoting huge amounts of resources into propping up what amounts to security theater, which is generally actively harmful. Abrasiveness and a willingness to ruffle the feathers of purveyors of bogus security is a public service.

That is not to say that particular religious beliefs can not be harmful, but there are plenty of religions and in most of them hatred is not part of the doctrine or ritual unless abuse is made by people in power who would otherwise use any other set of outlooks for the same purpose. There are in fact religions that do not involve "imaginary friends" and interfere little with modern scientific outlook.