HN user

sieabahlpark

2 karma

Unapologetic alt account. Get to reply or comment 2 times every 24 hours. Comments are always dead upon posting.

User moderation system that encourages "yes-and" only replies.

Posts0
Comments529
View on HN
No posts found.

Tailwind v4 just gave everyone who uses sass the middle finger. It's rampant in the front end to rewrite because it's actually a solved problem. They need to explain their salary by reinventing constantly..

Codeberg Down 1 year ago

They want to feel validated with identity politics first and foremost. Creating additional distance from the bad words so people who care about identity politics are comforted.

Orbit by Mozilla 2 years ago

It's almost like... They're owned by Google and don't really compete or something...

Gee, fucking wow, it's almost as if it's plain a day why they've sucked as a corp, non profit, and culturally for a decade at this point.

I think torrenting is one of those things that people understand is sketchy without it actually being sketchy. People also don't just leave it open forever, there usually leeching or seeding and then close the program when it's done. You're probably more likely to get a virus from the pirates exe. (Save me the reply that explains you can use torrenting legally, I already know.)

Copyright is copyright. If you don't like the idea of a publisher owning the rights to content they published doesn't mean you have a right to their content. Let alone worldwide distribution of that content.

What makes you feel entitled to the content of the publisher before the copyright expires? Do you feel that you deserve access to everything because you've deemed the concept of ownership around book publishing immoral?

You can't just take a digital copy of a physical book and give it to everyone worldwide. That isn't your choice or decision to make nor is it ethical to ascribe malice to simply retaining distribution rights to content they own.

"Make publishers richer", it's actually just honoring the concept of ownership...

I personally just really don't like magic links auth. It just feels brittle and if your email provider attempts to scan urls to see where they actually go you end up giving them an auth token and by the time the user clicks the link it's invalidated (or you don't invalidate the link at all which is worse).

If you have an issue with bots on your platform you're going to always have bot problems. It's trivial to abuse your auth to derank your standing too. I can force your app to send out bounced emails to hundreds and thousands of bad emails. Costing you $$ or rep in the email exchange. The second affects your ability to authenticate legitimate users too.

Wish magic links would just go away and be acknowledged as an anti-pattern.

Every comment I make is immediately dead upon me posting, it's been that way for about a year.

I believe transparency is necessary, but also have been in the situation where the alarms are going off and you slip on making sure disclosures are optimally distributed. Generally I'm just concerned that it's documented at all.

Now if they maintained not revealing the security issue over the following week I'd agree.

Should they have had a bulletin stating when it occurred in August? Absolutely. I'm not disagreeing, and the distance from that event I would agree with you. However, considering just how fundamental the security vulnerability was there isn't exactly an immediate benefit to blast that to the world. It opens up the spotlight for more advanced attacks to take advantage of other unpatched holes.

Taking the time to go through and _really_ make sure it's patched (as well as a general check around the codebase for other EZ vulns) is, in my opinion, the better option.

Now if this had been a larger timeframe and repeated offense I'd agree the security hygiene for Arc should be bumped up in priority ASAP and until that probably happens Arc as a platform could not be trusted.

Nope that's how CAFE standards work. You can thank the EPA for that!

Instead of building more efficient small cars it becomes impossible to make them meet the efficiency requirements without making the car cost so much extra through fines. So instead you just get more "trucks" and SUVs. No more sedans! Those are the vehicles killing the planet!

That lists the pay discrepancy but doesn't mention if there are literally any factors for the disparity such as role, responsibilities, performance, etc. It just mentions race, which gives me absolutely no usable information to give credibility.

If we are to assume black and women workers have historically been missing entirely from tech then the efforts of recent initiatives would bring fresh people in? Those newer people wouldn't have the same length of professional experience but the expectation is to be paid equal?

Put another way if the CEO is white and they make 50m and you have two employees, one black and one white who each make 50k, the average for white workers would be skewed higher? Before anyone replies "um actually, it's only workers within the guild, the CEO isn't included", okay, but does everyone in the guild have the same job title, experience, and responsibilities?

As an aside, they've structured that website like trash. Yes, I'd love to click a link to see the pay study which is just duplicated below the link without any additional information. It's like they purposely are trying to say nothing but be loud.

Founder Mode 2 years ago

Care to elaborate? Most things boil down to client side features like streaming the video with HLS or DASH, even if it's not live just to get the encoding benefits. DRM is its own thing.

I think it's important to have the distinction between delivering video content and the in-app experience. I do think streaming VOD is way easier than live content.

Google Pixel 9 Pro 2 years ago

If an annoying phone tree is going to take 3 minutes to navigate by listening to the prompts, then it will also take 3 minutes to navigate by letting the AI listen and write little buttons for me.

If it's a common number for a support line it actually shows you the options before they're stated by the robot. Say for example if I call bank of america's support line, it will show the not-yet-said options as greyed out, but selectable. If the call robot accepts early inputs you can actually navigate a phone menu quite rapidly. Pair that with the estimated wait times or "hold for me" you can save yourself the headache of "actively" waiting.

My guess is Google wanted to really give them every opportunity so that most people come to your conclusion instead of "wow! Google is just trying to censor the internet"