sentences

You could also save time by not prefacing some of your sentences with insults. Come on, uncool.

Her: Because sometimes it's just a few sentences or design elements that change. It's easy to miss and has happened a few times.

Normally, I have to read sentences and paragraphs multiple times for them to "sink in". That time, I just skimmed, and understood.

I eventually moved on to writing whole sentences, entirely in this new script. Then whole paragraphs.

Some nations increased prison sentences to try and deter crime, and crime went down. Some nations put a huge effort into reforming criminals, and crime went down.

Either they assume the user scans for "Ok," when wanting to close something, or that they skim sentences from the inside-out. If you do close it and click it again, which usually means "reopen", you instead get scrolled down to the bottom of the page.

[0] Meaning individuals, of whatever gender/race/class/whatever, that are likely to be reading HN. [1] If you don't believe me, ponder for a moment sentences like, "But I like Negroes just fine!" Language matters.

Perhaps you can show that she disproportionately pursues excessive sentences, or perhaps you can show that she makes technical mistakes about the internet. There are few records that will stand up to deep critical scrutiny.

France, Italy, Turkey, and Russia have horrendous prisons where in many cases prisoners don't survive their sentences. France's prisons are so historically bad that they've spawned whole revolutions numerous times, and are a common factor in their history.

-- Edits: moved comparison of Bitcoin to gold and cash to footnote; also, made minor changes to several sentences so they more accurately reflect what I intended to write in the first place.

All factual information can be summarized in two sentences: "The mars rover lasted longer than expected because we did not anticipate the strong winds blowing dust off the solar panels. Furthermore, the rocker-bogie suspension system kept the machine from toppling over."

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

Sometimes through mistaken identity or bad intel or pure human error the wrong person is killed, or the right person is killed with their children * The "Kids for Cash Scandal" where a judge received kickbacks from a prison owner to give juveniles harsher sentences. * And finally, spying at an enormous degree on the US population at large.

If you haven't got time to read the whole thing, consider these sentences: In fact the FBI agents even admitted their intention to collect passwords in transit so they could access emails protected by Lavabits encrypted storage feature. This was in stark contrast the DOJ attornies who maintained that only the metadata authorized by the court order would be collected.

I've been in many conversations explicitly praising Singapore -- a country that permits death sentences for minor infractions -- as a viable model of the future. The thing that makes Singaporification scary is that it works. The scariest dystopias are not hideous hellscapes where nobody would want to live, as those tend to self-destruct or at best persist in tiny enclaves and never catch on. Who would want to emulate North Korea? But seductive dystopias are dangerous because they can catch on. Who wouldn't want low crime, clean streets, and a wonderfully healthy economy? In that sense I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today. Historical precursors include Franco's Spain. Think of Singaporification as a gentler, less overtly violent form of Spanish fascism. But as we see if you openly challenge it, the gloves rapidly come off and your shiny clean utopia busts out the tanks, tear gas, and death penalty sentences.