kenty

I hate to say it but good riddance! OK to keep as a classic icon for everything on the road but definitely not something that I would want to continue being popular.

This is beautiful.

I don't doubt the historical usage but try deploying a Matlab program, The licensing terms and the hassle of the whole runtime are horrible and I'm not aware of any algorithm or location which could not be with reasonable ease implemented via an open language.

Stack Overflow with all of its shortcomings was a marvel of the internet at it's peak. People especially in early were chasing karma and anything you asked, you were sure to get some answer. Not always right but some answer. While for sure LLMs will give much better answers on average. I feel that it's a piece of humanity we've lost there that should be adequately remembered and the memory cherished.

Amazing impact that person had. Although MATLAB probably kind of outdated these days as anything can be accomplished in Julia and Py and I remember deploying that software being deliberately made difficult by this being shareware. When I studied almost everybody ended up using MATLAB during their study and almost everybody ended up hating it when it came to publishing results and doing demonstrations.

Good article but sorry but it should not be normalized that you have to have an iPhone to join a social network. Something clearly wrong there.

where do you get the bacteria/ yeast from?

Thank you. I was a little bit disappointed that these more sinister parts were occluded but I guess that is to be expected after all, the dairy industry spends insane amounts of money to keep us gaslighted. Just ask somebody if cows give milk without being pregnant...

Let's also not forget that the article basically skips what rennet actually is just naming it an enzyme.

It's indeed pretty interesting how our society has normalized being. what I would say is antisocial by the norms of previous generations in the form of the gen z stare. Funnilly I remember a situation where I got a job offer from somebody from an older generation and I just stood still and stared for 1 minute. Not because I wanted to be disrespectful but because I was processing the information and I was simply so baffled that I forgot the social dance of showing the thinking on my face and doing thinking sounds (if you know you know). This led to the other person holding a lecture on how you should respond that you do not have a response yet but I thinking. I ended up accepting.

Dietary fiber is clearly off charts for OP.

This seems clickbait? Gemini answers:

Method,Logistical Requirement Automatic/Tunnel,The vehicle must be present to be processed through the brushes or jets. Self-Service Bay,The vehicle must be driven into the bay to access the high-pressure wands. Hand Wash (at home),"If the ""car wash"" is a location where you buy supplies to bring back, walking is feasible." Detailing Service,"If you are dropping the car off for others to clean, the car must be delivered to the site."

Thanks for the thorough explanation, that, indeed, is a level of nuance that's hard for me to spot.

Interestingly, "absolutely right" is very common in German: "du hast natürlich absolut Recht" is something which I can easily imagine a friend's voice (or my voice) say at a dinner table. It's "du hast Recht" that sounds a little bit too formal and strong x[.

Agreed on the sycophancy point, in Gemini I even have a preamble that basically says "don't be a sycophant". It still doesn't always work.

it's common for people to be bad at a second language

Non-native speaker here: huh, is "you are absolutely right" wrong somehow? I.e., are you a bad english speaker for using it? Fully agree (I guess "fully agree" is the common one?) with this criticism of the article, to me that colloquialism does not sound fishy at all.

There might also be two effects at play:

  1. Speech "bubbles" where your preferred language is heavily influenced by where you grew up. What sounds common to you might sound uncommon in Canada.
  2. People have been using LLMs for years at this point so what is common for them might be influenced by what they read from LLM output. So while initially it was an LLM colloquialism it could have been popularized by LLM usage.

I use dark mode unless there is glare coming in. So on foggy or rainy days - dark mode all day. On sunny days - light mode. At night - dark mode.

Just use dark reader, it works extremely well here.

It is clear that Alphabet is his baby and neither he not Larry ever fully left. He is still in his 50s so maybe just too young to play golf and chill on superyachts all day. While him being a billionaire makes any lesson derived have to have an asterisk him enjoying technical work even after long having won the rat race is a pretty cool role model.

This is exactly my thoughts. If you are reading this, author, please either make the snowflakes less distracting or toggleable. They are a pain on mobile.

Will remember it for the next article to run some more empirical number crunching, thank you! This was more of a rationalist view on things and focussing on Zurich only.

Yes. Thanks for pointing this out. I was hesitant to keep it in the article too as it's a bit too much of a simplification since I pool in different actors like Baugenossenschaften, the city and e.g., pension funds together. Further analyzing would have indeed been better but I wanted to keep it compact.

Megacities are obviously a different beast. Interestingly though, as far as I know, Moscow is heavily expanding into/incorporating/eating up the neighboring towns, expanding borders and building metro stations instead of mainly doing Verdichtung. I guess there are/have to be some projects where they build a bit higher but it is not the main shtick.

Came here just to write the same. I've squandered to find an explanation because I absolutely enjoy the subject. Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker and generally have non-native speakers around so I don't understand some of the metaphors, perhaps it's because I'm just not used to reading these kinds of long sentences anymore, or perhaps it's just not my kind of beer. I really don't know.

I think we work at the same little company. Tbh, we are already kind of at 5., some divisions are getting shut down and people have n months to find a new team. It's a game of musical chairs.

While others find him inconsiderate, I appreciate that Zuckerberg is at least not all corpspeak. Too bat he bet on the losing horse with the Metaverse and now has to stay in until either it succeeds or he gets sacked.

I can't prove this part which is why I've explicitly stated the assumption.

It seems all but impossible to fully "ban" second hand smoke: * how do you prove it? * how do you measure the amount in case you've proven it? It seems such a minor individual offense that courts would hardly accept cases.

So we probably have to rely on smoker's good will to not smoke near others instead of on the law.

Every population consists of nice people and inconsiderate people, with something like a normal distribution of niceness. Assuming that smokers follow this distribution, there will always be inconsiderate smokers which don't care and stand in front of doors blowing clouds of tar into other people's faces. The amount of such people will be governed by the rate of smokers. Hence, the best way to reduce second hand smoke is to reduce the count of smokers. Note that this even applies if we assume that smokers are much more considerate than the regular population.

In general, two wrongs don't make a right.

Additionally for the given example: orange juice contains as much sugar as redbull, a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine and the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all.

I think this depends on whether or not you agree on the premise:

less smoking ads -> less smoking

Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties.

Note: I am implicitly assuming that:

less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders

is true (which it obviously is).

Very happy to see this pass. It's idiotic that kids, while going to school, can be exposed to multiple tobacco ads that make tobacco appear as "cool" and "hip" and "desirable". These ads obviously work or else no company would do them.

The arguments used by the "No" lobby are: * slippery slope of meat and alcohol being banned in advertizing; when meat is not even a drug (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). * free market disruption; when smoking is obviously a harmful substance and this law applies to all of the competing tobacco companies. * little events like festivals, bars, and shops get less money; this is probably true but festivals can simply raise their prices a bit. For small owner-led shops, yes, less tobacco consumption => less sales and tobacco is a high-margin product.

It's a great example of direct democracy sometimes leading to better political decisions. It's easier for big tobacco to buy off just the legislators (whom actually made an extremely toned down counterproposal) than all of the public.

Thanks for this reply! I did not know this fact and the new info made me go down the rabbit hole of Brutalism vs Bauhaus. Very much appreciated. Comments like this make me love HN!

When done right, Bauhaus can look pretty good. However, living in Germany, I've come to mostly dislike it. The 70's style Bauhaus buildings are everywhere here, they are ugly, clumpy, and break with the medieval/Jugendstil facades in the city centers. It does not help that thet often were built with cheap materials and are hard to maintain bacaude of that. Unfortunately, they often now are under Monument protection so also can' be demolished.

I think that when Bahbaus is done right, it can be absolutely beautiful and functional.

However, I've come to dislike it since I think that it is overu