HN user

dazmax

461 karma
Posts7
Comments141
View on HN
[dead] 8 years ago

If all you celebrate are the 'wins', you disincentive people from taking risks.

The value they're providing is to the forum owner, who has reduced spam-handling workload.

So the forum is providing you value, you are providing Google value, and Google is providing the forum value.

This is a pretty good point. If you're the kind of person who has avoided getting a photo ID on purpose, you probably are staying well away from Facebook. The only targets I can think of would be homeschooled teens with no student ID.

It does however make Facebook even harder to use for anti-government organizing, though Facebook is already pretty clear about not wanting truly anonymous profiles.

Guessing the goal is to get something working well enough that Google will put it in Chrome.

All of the problems they list hurt Google.

When Soylent was first announced but wasn't available yet, it struck me as something I'd like so I tried Slimfast (and Ensure).

Had to drink a lot to get enough energy and it was way too sugary and sweet – it gave me the sick feeling I get when I have only donuts or something for breakfast. The sugar free version tasted too much of aspartame.

I'd be happy to try something else with the same sweetness balance of Soylent if you have a suggestion.

Lots of human activity boils down to finding patterns and labeling them. Don't you think there could be some benefit to having a label on this cluster of issues, such as making it more efficient to find useful remedies?

I do agree though that there's a danger with this kind of thing to think of it as some kind of single agent and oversimplify. I think we need to be careful to keep in mind the underlying nature of the meaning of these terms.

Too snarky. It seemed like you wanted to raise a potential discussion point without actually committing to discussing it. Just to score cynic points.

Thanks, that was helpful. I had the general idea that this was good, but for some reason I'd never seen it spelled out.

Anyone know of a break-taking app that watches your activity and can wait until you've lost focus on your work before reminding you to take a break?

Something like the alarms that wake you up at the right point in your sleep cycle.

It would probably need to have a cut-off eventually, but I'd hate to be interrupted in the middle of tracing some complex logic if there's a perfect stopping point 10 minutes later.

I'm on a Retina Macbook Pro, and the white/black checkerboard square (A in Figure 12) matches the (128,128,128) gray (B), not the lighter one (C).

Looking closer, it seems like my computer is, like, anti-aliasing the image itself. In Digital Color Meter, the white and black pixels are both grays. See screenshot below, the magnified area is from square A in the browser. When I downloaded the image and opened it in Preview it is black and white like it's supposed to be.

Screenshot: https://cl.ly/2T2U2J0A3v31 (If you're on a Mac maybe try opening the image in an image viewer)

Anyone know what's going on? I also can't distinguish between the first few black bars in Figure 2.

Reading the newspaper and magazines was basically the equivalent before the internet, I think. With the paper you'd eventually run out of stuff to read in a day, but if you had enough magazine subscriptions, you could find something marginally interesting.

I think one difference other than the never-ending aspect of the internet is that when you're reading a newspaper or book you get sleepy when you're supposed to, whereas if you're looking at a screen the blue light keeps you awake longer and all your chores take longer the next day because you have less energy.

But if a manufacturer wanted to only play audio to their device, they could have already made it a lightning-connected device.

If they do give the ability to distinguish the lightning-to-3.5mm adapter from other lightning headphones, that isn't any greater than the ability to distinguish between the 3.5mm jack and the lightning port is it?

Yes the rich would probably pay more even with getting their basic income. The point of giving it to everyone is to reduce the administrative cost of figuring out who qualifies, and to get rid of "welfare cliffs" that give poor people a disincentive to earn more for fear of losing assistance programs.