HN user

kps

8,956 karma

‹hn-user-name› ‹at› data travel and experiments ‹period› com

Posts0
Comments3,078
View on HN
No posts found.

Star didn't have cut/copy/paste. Instead it had ‘copy to’ and ‘move to’ operations on the current selection, more like today's drag-and-drop. Some influential people decided that invisible fragile clipboard state was better than a copy/move-in-progress state.

Decoy Font 6 days ago

That was 7 hours ago. Now, Google Images not only reads the text but links to that web site.

Decoy Font 6 days ago

The assumption is that if you use this alone to try to convey information to a human, a human with a visual disability can't use it. If you also provide a text channel (e.g. `ALT="…"`) then the LLM can use that and doesn't need to read the confusing image.

No, not simultaneously usable as foreground and background colours. For instance, on a light background, the default yellow is a good ‘highlighter’ background. If yellow is reconfigured to be dark enough to be usable as a foreground colour (i.e. brown), it's no longer usable as a background. You can't have both, and you can't assume the user has picked one or the other.

And how do you check the background?

OSC 11

Colour addendum: If the user hasn't configured anything, don't use a colour other than red without checking whether the terminal has a light or dark background. Don't hardcode colours.

Reads eMarker chip parameters in Type-C cables, providing detailed performance information (e.g., maximum current, voltage, data transfer rates) to help users fully understand cable capabilities and ensure safe, efficient device usage.

Good thing nobody lies.

The revolutionary French tried decimal timekeeping, but no amount of guillotines could make it stick.

Planetarily, we only need to slow the Earth's rotation by 1.46%, so that the year becomes 360 days (1 day = 1° of revolution) and I can sleep an extra 21 minutes.

Small Penis Rule 17 days ago

It's pretty amazing that South Park hasn't been sued (or lost?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

tl;dr:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.