Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | kokofoo's commentslogin

Hitler had to learn the true nature and the power of nonviolent resistance the hard way. These were Hitler's words in 1943, admitting privately to his lieutenants the difficulties of ruling the conquered regions such as Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, etc., where people were using nonviolent non-cooperation means to resist the Nazi occupation. "One cannot rule by force alone... For, in the long run, government systems are not held together by the pressure of force, but rather by the belief in the quality and the truthfulness with which they represent and promote the interests of the people."


I always wonder why no one plays with forehands on both sides, i.e., a right-handed forehand and a left-handed forehand. I think that would be such an advantage.


> I think that would be such an advantage.

It reduces reach, which is a disadvantage, and most pro players have sufficient swing power on the forehand that the second hand would be superfluous.

Of course Monica Seles utilized the two-handed forehand to great effectiveness.

On the men's side, Fabrice Santoro was probably the most famous and successful two-hander.

It's just different angles and motions and muscles from the forehand and backhand. Physiologically, it's easier to generate pace from the forehand, especially using the rest of your body. On the backhand, the second hand can give you a little extra to make up for the "awkwardness" of the stroke.


Wouldn’t it increase reach to be playing ambidextrously and always forehand?

I think the real answer is the switching cost between hands. Not enough reaction time to swap hands in the middle of a play.


They're asking why nobody switch-hits every ball as a one-handed forehand, like baseball players have learned to do to mitigate sidedness issues.


Oh, I might have misunderstood the question, because there are players who play a two-hander on both sides, but none who switch hands.

The answer is that most people are dominant on one side, right-handed or left-handed, and their non-dominant side is much weaker, so a right-hander hitting a left hand "forehand" would be much worse. That's just how our brains work. :-)

The thing about baseball is, all hitting strokes are two-handed, so it's more analogous to the two-hander from both sides than the one-hander. Also, baseball hitters don't have to run to the ball. :-)

I would guess that the second hand in baseball helps a lot with stability and accuracy, because a baseball is so much harder than a tennis ball, and the barrel of the bat is so much smaller than the string surface of a tennis racquet.


Congrats on your marriage. I really enjoy your blog posts and podcasts and comments here on HN. They taught me a lot. Thank you.


I actually told my wife (who knew the correct answer - Chicago) half jokingly that perhaps it was the sportsmanship built into Watson to throw away an easy answer once in a while, because he was on a hot streak up to that point.


I'm wondering what you think about Wun-Yi Shu Universe (http://byrev.org/tech/wun-yi-shu-universe/). I saw a post about his paper here on HN a while ago.


Without looking too hard at it, this seems to be nonsense. Shu pulls parameters out of the air all over the place and makes wild philosophical claims about the nature of time without explanation. He selectively ignores basic physics, and makes up nonstandard formulas for various quantities whenever they're needed.

Further, he repeatedly draws conclusions that, if proven, would win him a Nobel Prize. The biggest is that black holes can't exist. Others include having solved both the flatness problem and the horizon problem and ruling out the only known explanation of the CMBR without replacing it with anything else.

But, rather than take my word for it, you should just apply the Baez Index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html


Centrifugal force is also used to achieve the concept called artificial gravity, which is the reason why characters in Star Trek walk around like normal in their starships.


Some sci-fi has cylindrical ships or space stations spun for gravity, but in Star Trek they have "gravity plating", so the ships don't have to spin. A convenient plot device to cover the fact that they didn't have the budget to shoot every episode aboard the vomit comet.



I grew up near a lake and always used to hearing those drowning stories. One of the guy I met told me about a similar story. He was trying to rescue a kid who was drowning and he started to grab/climb him as soon as he reached him. He said he had to punch him into unconscious then rescued him.


I recently read an article in which they say one can solve problems in their dreams [1]. I could swear it has happened to me at least a couple times.

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37926551/ns/health-behavior/


This is a much harder problem to solve than terrorism itself.


I can see the opposite side too. Prestige isn't worth much if nobody willing to pay for it. But the fact is there are people willing to pay for it. EDIT: I guess that's what you're saying as well.


And why are people willing to pay for it? Because universities have marketed said prestige as something that is absolutely essential to success in the modern world. So of course people will buy it.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: