HN user
Thank you both for adding these comments. I'm older than you, mid-40s now, and I'm _just_ starting to get treatment for ADHD after a lot of unnecessary struggles.
I'm sure that people like the root of this thread mean well, but at the same time that attitude is exactly what kept me from receiving treatment or care when I was younger.
The new rule is 5 years after mission completion, so this already allows for a 25-year orbit (as long as you're still operating).
I can't speak to any current events, but I was an employee of Ximian, formerly Helix Code, from 2000 to 2004. I also lived with [name redacted] for a year around 2001 and/or 2002, when we lived just down the street from Nat.
Nat and [name redacted] were always exceptionally close, which I always found confusing. [name redacted] was intense, passionate, charismatic, but also had troubled and troubling relationships with people, _particularly_ women. [name redacted] was, if I remember correctly, let go from Ximian when he failed to arrive to work every day by noon for one week straight (we lived a 5 to 10 minute walk from the office).
Even after [name redacted] was let go, he and Nat remained fast friends.
Suffice it to say, this exploit was not simply chaining gadgets.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
"Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto.
Following Google's corporate restructuring under the conglomerate Alphabet Inc. in October 2015, Alphabet took "Do the right thing" as its motto, also forming the opening of its corporate code of conduct.[1][2][3][4][5] The original motto was retained in Google's code of conduct, now a subsidiary of Alphabet. In April 2018, the motto was removed from the code of conduct's preface and retained in its last sentence.[6]
I know saying Google removed Don't Be Evil is something of a trope, but the truth is a little more complicated. And, of course, the presence or absence of this phrase has no necessary bearing on the degree to which they are perceived as evil or not!
Nah, this was never really about lexicographic sorting. Pre-semver, there was general consensus between systems like dpkg and RPM about how version numbers worked. This is a bit of a simplification, but it roughly works out like this:
* Split version number into version numbers separated by non-alphanumeric components (e.g., 3.10.2 becomes (3,10,2) and 3.2 becomes (3,2)).
* Compare two versions item by item numerically (in this case, 3==3 but 10 > 2 so 3.10.2 is newer than 3.2).
This is a massive oversimplification, and if you're curious you can read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Archive:Tools/RPM/VersionComp... for the gory details.
Source: long ago I worked at a company named Ximian that shipped a software update product that worked on systems using both RPM and dpkg, and I had to deeply understand this problem space.
There's also the ability to collaborate with people who don't have an iOS device. If someone creates a Collection in Apple Maps I just don't get to participate. If someone creates a shared list in Google Maps I can see it on my phone, a web browser, someone with an iPhone...
Couple quick clarifications:
BFR isn't a name that's still in use. Poster you're responding to was correct in calling it Starship: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship)" (from https://www.spacex.com/starship).
Starship projects to be significantly less expensive than Falcon Heavy _or_ Falcon 9. With total reusability of both stages and a construction built toward little to no refurbish or rehab, the cost per launch is nearly completely dictated (order of magnitude) by fuel costs, and project to be ~$2 million. This is an order of magnitude reduction in $/kg over the Falcon 9.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-...
You are reacting to a factually incorrect statement. You do not lose access to games you paid for if your Pro subscription is canceled.
(Incidentally, and you lose the game if you cancel your Stadia subscription.)
That is a factually incorrect statement. You lose access to any games you claimed for free as a benefit of your Stadia Pro membership if you cancel your membership; you regain access to those games if you renew, but you will not gain access to games that were offered for free during any interval where you were not a subscriber.
You retain access to any game you paid for, _even_ if you paid a discounted rate as a result of being a Stadia Pro member, even if your subscription is canceled.
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-on-track-for-human-suborbit...
I'm not sure they have quite the history you're implying.
I agree! It felt like reading a (less egregious version of a) Trump denial, with the same impact -- no one cared before, but now it's a thing.
As sibling points out though, we may just not be the target audience.
I appreciate why the title was modified from the original, but the mistaken use of "it's" rather than "its" was introduced in the process and should be corrected.
I use Apple products at work, and am otherwise not very invested in the world of Apple. I frequently will have to look up how to accomplish a task or get a particular piece of software working, and the author will assume that I'm familiar with where macOS <some place name> fits in the chronology vs. macOS <some other place name>, requiring me to look it up.
Worse for me than the Android dessert names were, since at least those were ordered.
The last two sentences of the article seem to at least obliquely address this:
In this century, we urgently need to undo some of the consequences of the last great boom by developing affordable zero- and negative-emissions technologies. That's another hard problem—and to solve it, we'll need to recapture some of what made the “special century” so special.
I've spoken before about how much I like Zulip. I don't know if it's any more stable or available than Slack, but I do like that the fundamental concepts exposed by Zulip actually encourage focused, productive conversation (something that always feels like a losing battle in Slack).
That's true at a lot of organizations. The cost of a false positive hire typically vastly outweighs the cost of a false negative, particularly when you have the luxury of being perceived as a premiere employer in the space (from which follows a steady stream of qualified applicants).
The article writes:
Anaxagoras was arrested, tried and sentenced to death, ostensibly for breaking impiety laws while promoting his ideas about the moon and sun.
This provides the context to understand that while the title is true at a surface level, his claims around the moon likely served as pretext rather than true cause.
You write:
Its exactly analogous to claiming James Watson was attacked because people didn't like the chemical bond structure of DNA.
I disagree. An exact analogy would require that James Watson was actually attacked for his belief in the structure of DNA, which served as a pretext for the real claims against him. James Watson was attacked directly for his views on race.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-...
Doubly applicable in this case, as it talks about the perils of a single study _and_ discusses this in the context of minimum wage research.
Indeed, but (unsurprisingly) Apple-only.
I just searched for TPUG on Google in both my logged in profile, as well as an incognito window. Both searches returned primarily results about the Toronto PET Users Group, including a knowledge panel specifically about the Toronto PET Users Group (founded in 1978 by Lyman Duggan).
That's either very quick turnaround to fix, or a deeper mystery!
I suspect it's a reflection of the way the majority of their audience interacts with search.
For a large number of people, Google's ability to answer the underlying question, rather than explicitly identify pages where all search terms appear, means it works better. If you think of Google as a way to get answers, this is good.
If you think of Google as a search engine, and particularly if you have historical experience with (and expectations of) search engines, this is very frustrating. And the workarounds of clicking the "must contain" link (or surrounding all of your search terms with quotation marks) are a seemingly unnecessary inconvenience.
As a personal anecdote, I was an early adopter of smartphones (particularly relative to a non-technical audience). So I was excited when I could speak to my phone, then disappointed when I discovered that I had to structure my queries and instructions very carefully.
A few years ago I was on a road trip with a very non-technical friend. We decided to stop for Chipotle. Had it been up to me, I would probably have pulled out my phone, opened Google Assistant (or perhaps Maps directly), and told my phone (speaking as clearly as possible) "navigate to the closest Chipotle" or something similar.
But I was driving, so she just pulled out her iPhone and half-shouted "I want a burrito!" at it. And that worked just fine.
Point being, I had expectations for how things should work based on interactions with earlier iterations of an interface. She didn't.
Be careful with terminology. BE-4 and Raptor are both staged combustion methalox engines. Raptor is full-flow staged combustion, while BE-4 is oxidizer-rich staged combustion.
The article does not claim that the SSME is full flow; as described in the quote you pulled, it's fuel-rich.
BE-4 is not full flow, but oxidizer-rich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle#Oxidiz...).
No, it's deeper than that. They are describing the capabilities of a process handed a file descriptor, which means it does not have a path at all. There's no way to resolve '..' relative to no path.
Compare that to a POSIX system where a directory has an actual child which is a reference to the directory's parent whose name is always '..'.
The talk about resolving '..' is merely a demonstration that the behavior of "cd .." can be supported/emulated in a context where you have both an open directory and corresponding path, without requiring that '..' literally exist.
Yours isn't the first time I've seen this perspective. It's definitely not just you. That said, as I grow older I find I enjoy this more and more.
To make a case for this particular instance, as others have mentioned, this is a magazine article, not a newspaper article, or a scientific publication. The article isn't _just_ about bug population in decline. There are a number of major and minor themes woven throughout. I feel like the narrative frame works to support that.
As another reply notes, this is a very strange burden of proof you're suggesting. That said...
I don't think modeling Google as a surveillance company is a particularly good model. If you need to pick something reductionist, it's probably safest to model Google as a corporation that seeks to make money, although that's not particularly unique or (obviously) a sufficiently refined model.
I use a lot of Google services, own some Google hardware (phone, smart speakers and the like). But I also have reservations and concerns about Google, and I try to regularly reexamine my relationship with Google to see if I'm still comfortable with everything!
One step I took was to really dig into the My Activity dashboard that Google provides. I was really interested, after letting a Google Home into my life, to see what I could learn. The most obvious step I took was to listen to the recordings Google keeps of every interaction I have with the Home, and ensure there weren't things presented that I hadn't intended Google to be listening to.
But! What if Google is actually recording everything, and then only presenting me with the things that were actual instructions to my Google Home in the dashboard? (Let's disregard network traffic analysis and the like for the moment.) If Google were up to this kind of shenanigans, they would have to be very, very careful to have an appropriately conservative filter in place to ensure none of the secret recordings were ever presented to me.
So, to test this, I proceeded to independently record every interaction I had with the Google Home (just took a quick note on paper) for a couple days. I later went to the My Activity dashboard to see if every interaction was present. (They were.) At this point, I am reduced to a narrower set of options: Google is actually doing what they told me they would, or their super-AI is so advanced that is is capable of covert monitoring and reporting on my activity along with _perfect_ filtering such that there are no false positives or false negatives.
This obviously isn't exhaustive or comprehensive. But I find myself coming back to "why?" The things that Google tells me they do with my data, up front, are sufficient to explain their business activities and revenues. The disincentives around doing anything more nefarious are rather large. I reevaluate the relationship periodically, but I am generally comfortable looking at the terms of the deal (I share some data, they provide me a lot of value) and accepting them.
Honestly, the thing I find far scarier is their absolute shit-tier support and draconian account suspension policies. I found myself entertaining becoming a Google One subscriber even though I have no need for more cloud storage. I was literally entertaining the notion of paying them a nominal fee every month so that I might be somewhat less likely to lose my account and all of the association information for some minor (possibly merely perceived) transgression. That's a bit scary!
The couple was forced to put up their real estate holdings as collateral to ensure that they pay the fine.
That eliminates at least some avenues of avoidance. That's still no guarantee the fine is actually paid, of course, but if they do avoid it, it'll be with the complicity of the city.
That's a shame, since this one is announcing the kickstarter, and those weren't. And there was obvious interest, as well as interesting discussion, on this post.
That's not how a sonic boom works. A sonic boom doesn't occur just at the moment that an object exceeds the speed of sound; it's a continuous phenomenon that is experienced by a stationary observer as a momentary event.