I had the exact same question. This seems like a much bigger crime than the story is letting on. Also, shouldn't this be handled at least jointly by a federal agency? I didn't see any mention of federal charges.
You're mixing beliefs with tactics/behavior. The behavior you described is "toxic" no matter what your beliefs are. I agree that the lack of repercussions and social feedback online lead to an increase in people acting like this and it is a problem for pretty much all public forums. However, it is neither constructive, nor is it truthful, in my opinion, to attach this behavior to a single group, side, or set of beliefs. All you'll end up doing is driving moderates of said group further to the extremes. You can call out ideas you think are bad and you can call out behavior you think is bad, but "other-ing" an entire group based on the worst actions at the fringes of their membership just isn't going to change any minds. It only widens the divide.
Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group.
Who knows. Their point is that they now have control over the content and aren't subject to the whims of an external body. I have felt the pain of this as about 25% (!) of the videos in my youtube favorites list have been removed either by Google or the original uploader over the years.
I do both simultaneously. Both have saved me. There have been times where I immediately hit the brakes and horn when I saw someone doing something stupid (about to pull out into traffic, about to merge into me from another lane, etc) In some of these situations, the horn causes the other person to stop what they're doing and a collision that could not have been avoided solely by me braking, is avoided.
Are you making hiring decisions at the company you're at now? Can you share the name of that company either here, or via e-mail? I, and I'm sure others, would like to avoid applying there.
"Ahmed, for his part, wanted to bring the clock to show an engineering teacher. Because it consisted of a board with a digital display and a tiger hologram on the front, the teacher recommended he hide it from the rest of the staff."
This statement implies there was a conversation with the teacher before bringing it in and that the teacher told him to bring it, but to not bring it out in other classes/in front of other teachers.
Your other points are not even worth replying to and border on trolling. You're upset that he didn't invent something new at 14? Building a homemade clock is too simple for his age and only 8 year olds should do it? This is one of the most insane posts I've ever seen on HN.
Not asserting fact here but merely providing my interpretation:
The engineering teacher may have advised the student to bring the device to school but to not pull it out in any other class. This could have been done to avoid distracting other students or attracting unwanted attention from other teachers. This seems like a straight forward request that may have been taken out of context. I have not seen a quote that uses the word "hide", which really changes the connotation of the statement. I highly doubt the engineering teacher thought specifically that the device could be seen as a bomb.
The other way to look at this is that if the price is able to find equilibrium at a low enough point, it will not be economically feasible to extract certain types of oil from the ground (e.g. tarsands). The real question is how much of an effect low prices will have on demand.
There's a good conversation about this, humans and cell regeneration specifically, in the movie "Waking Life" (as well as many many other great conversations about a variety of philosophies)
Do these sources include premature end of life from accident/injury/predation? It seems, at least intuitively, that these factors would significantly drag down life expectancy for outdoor cats. However, I think it would be useful to see the estimates with these factors excluded (noted of course) to just compare life expectancy assuming death from natural causes.
When I've been required to wear a life jacket in the past (as an adult) it's typically been in a situation where there was a chance of some other sort of injury occurring that would render you unconscious or unable to swim normally.
I always assumed my friends who spent their summers lifeguarding had a simple carefree job. I never gave much thought to just how attentive you have to be as a lifeguard. Thanks for putting this into perspective (literally) for the rest of us.