theguardian.com is hotbed of climate alarmism.

While it dose sit quite far to the left as a publication and some of its articles are concerning i don't think you can credibly call this one of them.

What about the article do you find distasteful/untrue?

Not parent, but I didn't like:

> the increasingly severe hurricanes and wildfires that are racking the country

From my own understanding, increasingly severe hurricanes have been predicted but not observed and wildfires have a bit more to do with forest management than climate change.

Edit: there was also this bit

> “There is also the issue of American individualism, remnants of manifest destiny, that don’t set us up well for understanding that we are part of the web of life. The American dream is quite self-involved. We need a new American dream.”

I'm not quite sure what the point of this sort of rhetoric is. Climate change is a complicated enough topic without tying it to a supposedly necessary re-conceptualization of the American worldview that many Americans will find unpalatable.

> I'm not quite sure what the point of this sort of rhetoric is. Climate change is a complicated enough topic without tying it to a supposedly necessary re-conceptualization of the American worldview that many Americans will find unpalatable.

My only guess is this is written for the UK and to a lesser extent EU audience and they felt this would echo with the current prescription of the US overseas. Newspapers don't set the discourse, they follow it.

> increasingly severe hurricanes have been predicted but not observed

The severity of Cyclone Fani has been directly attributed to climate change. The hurricane may have occurred without climate change, but there is very strong consensus that its severity is directly attributable to abnormally high temperatures in the Bay of Bengal.

The only ones against free speech these days are the far/weird-left. They have some twisted logic about not tolerating intolerant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). They are very selective whom they see as worth not tolerating.

This opinion piece is a response to a right-wing campaign to get Jeong fired from the NYT.

I'm the solo founder of PrintFriendly.com

Two years ago I applied to YC, and was turned down in the interview process. They asked, "how is PrintFriendly going to make a billion dollars"? I'm still trying to answer that (or at least a more modest version of the question).

Today PrintFriendly revenue is about $10k/mo, 1.2M visits/mo, and slow but steady growth.

I'm happy with the results, delighted actually. However, I'm not travelling the world, or working from a beach. I work hard everyday and reinveste the capital, to try and build a stable/strong/significant organization.

Cool idea and it looks really useful for printing out online tutorials/guides without all the ads/cruft - saw on your webpage that it's free so what's your revenue model?

If you poke around a bit more:

* The display is ad-free, but there are ads added at print time. (There are numerous competitors out there which will do this without the ads.)

* There's a $6/mo subscription for sites who want to do a "clean print" button with branding and no ads.

Can you give us an insight on how you drive revenue? Is it possible to connect offline?

Sweet. I've used iconfinder.com over the years. Its now a default stop when searching an icon. Seems to be getting better everytime i visit too. Keep up the good work!

Thanks man!

Barf. Sad, to see Hacker News being used as a marketing channel.

I don't view startups trying to get on Hacker News as a bad thing. Especially if the startup is providing information on how they solved a problem (Like I mentioned in the article about "Stadium Pitches").

Agreed.

I still think you should change your username, though :-)

Hacker News is seen as a social news site, thus a marketing channel to many people, just like Digg, Reddit, Huffington Post, and so on.

Vision and stamina to keep pushing till it done.

Quality, creativity, and difficult problems are the devils tools!

"All your events are belong to us"

Got scared when i read this. Gotta be a mistype (second headline, middle of page).

It's a reference to an old meme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

I had a feeling it was some inside joke. Not sure about expressions like these. If you're not familiar with the reference, it just looks like incorrect grammar or a typo.

I do like the trend of having apps that can launch from the menu bar like Alfred, Dropbox, Growl.

Thanks, glad you like.

My motivations were fairly pure, wanted to build a platform that gave citizens more power. Also thought there could be a way to monetize (ethically) with traction.

Got some press in the early days, and believe the problem is other than exposure. The site just isn't filling a need. Need to come up with something people really want.

I like the idea very much, and have a suggestion for you, if you are trying to be non-partisan, as indicated by your comment. I think you should change some of the colour scheme on the website, especially on the won/lost bar, because using red to denote loss, and blue to denote winning makes it seem like you are 'siding' with the democratic party. You might also want to change the colour of the banner, and possibly hide the number of votes for each side on incomplete polls, so as not to make users feel like part of a small minority who participates (which would be discouraging), unless there are a large number of voters.

Disclosure: I am a Canadian with no interest in US internal politics, and would just like to see this kind of site succeed.