HN user
我不是猫～ Tokyo
Using a reasonable OS (Linux etc), 4GB is absolutely fine for browsing and basic tasks, and indeed is often fine for development and other more-than-basic tasks as well, depending on how exactly you work (Emacs/Vim instead of an IDE, for instance).
Is 4GB considered too little under Windows these days?
This particular "viewpoint" is widely known, period, because there's no shortage of douchebros that freely advocate it, and more to the point, there's nothing to be gained from "suppressing" it.
Rather, more publicity of exactly this sort, is desirable, to make it clear that this type of thing is (1) nonsensical, and (2) (more importantly from fire-your-ass-from-google point of view), unacceptable.
That, presumably, is one reason supply is restricted ("fixed"), along with other restrictive laws, like height or density limits, forced parking minimums, etc.
Another contributor is poor transportation infrastructure, which limits peoples' flexibility, creating more pressure on housing near train lines and stations, etc.
I tend to use Google Keep (https://keep.google.com/) for this sort of thing, which is similarly pretty lightweight and doesn't impose much structure on anything, but is also permanently backed up and synced between all platforms, with nice mobile apps, and a simple URL you can just type for the web.
It also has some extra support for lists, which is handy for many of the sorts of things that it gets used for, and can handle images to some extent too.
[The one thing I wish it did was some sort of background version control, so when I accidentally delete something important I can get it back...]
The notable thing about "Irish" bars, I think, is that there are so many of them in non-Irish places, compared to other types of "nation-branded drinking establishment."
Not being sarcastic, I just didn't watch the video.
I was wondering if it was basically the same thing with nice animations...
Is this just the contents of the video in text form?
In any case, thanks! I don't need to watch the video now, as you've very clearly explained it in only four lines of text!
Mild snarkiness aside, is the quote really inaccurate?
"Getting used to" [something] has a pejorative sense, but it also just means "becoming familiar with," and really understanding something is, in a way, simply being so familiar with it that reasoning about it is second nature... at some point, things just sort of start to make sense...
The education correlation is also supported actual voting results, by seeing how voting results correlated with education levels in each voting region.
So it doesn't seem to be just an artifact of polling behavior.
I suspect another reason that politicians are so eager to stomp on H1B workers is because they're an easy target: most people don't care, and the H1B workers themselves can't vote, so pandering to anti-foreigner hysteria is a good bet for a politician...
I'm sure there are some tech workers who support Trump, but education seems to be one of the best predictors for who voted against Trump, and tech workers are probably on average better educated than the general populace...
Also, AFAIA, the addictiveness of alcohol varies a lot amongst the population, whereas pretty much everybody who smokes is addicted.
This means that using alcohol like you mention, as an occasional social lubricant, is a very viable strategy for many people. Once somebody starts smoking though, most of them can't just stop at will, they're probably doomed to spending all their breaks standing outside in the carpark, every day...
The most obvious difference is that alcohol isn't directly harmful to other people, whereas smoking is...
This attribute basically makes it very difficult for people to adopt a "well it's their choice, I'll let them dig their own grave" attitude in regard to smoking.
Why should it matter how they use the land?
If they want to use it purely to irritate Zuckerberg, that's their business.
The trouble with @Wikileaks obsessively and indiscriminately tweeting anti-Hillary leaks
It also reduces peoples' trust in Wikileaks and the veracity of the information they release.
Wikileaks' reputation as a (mostly) "impartial" actor was one of their greatest assets, and they seem to be throwing that away simply to sate Assange's desire for revenge...
Yeah, for a very, very, very small subset of words, the very first and most immediate things babies care about, this theory makes some sense.
For everything else, not so much.
Seriously, that wording is bizarre, like they started with "often," and then later made a "use more convincing language" pass without really paying much attention...
[Nose in Mandarin: bí or bízi...]
I think most people would agree that it's not the money that's the issue, it's that you need to somehow register with apple to compile and develop and app (presuming that's what this means).
Also what does this imply about non-apple toolsets? If I decide I want to try out gcc 6 on my mac, could I then not run programs compiled with it?
Huh? I'm not referring to setjmp at all... (why would you think I'm referring to setjmp?)
The PNG format has lots of variations and optional bits that would be quite annoying if you needed to handle them all yourself. I'm referring to the many various flags, options, and little helper functions in libpng that make handling all these format variations quite painless for the user of libpng.
[Some libraries, e.g. libtiff, provide mechanisms to abstract out the low-level details, but still expect the application to explicitly handle many format variations, and this is quite annoying.]
libpng is hardly perfect; it's old, and that certainly shows in various ways (e.g. the use of setjmp). But to call it the "worst API ever" is just wrong.
libpng is actually very easy to use directly.
Some other image libraries are hard because they force you to write many code-paths to handle various different cases, but libpng provides many different helpers that make it pretty simple.
I don't think there are any real tricks, cooking is all about practice. Just buy some recipe books or download whatever recipes tickle your fancy (I think Indian and Chinese are delicious, often simple, cheap, and healthy), choose stuff you think you can do, and start doing it. If you feel completely lost, a lot of cookbooks start with some explanation of techniques, but it doesn't take much to get started.
You don't even need recipes to get good results quickly, just being able to saute some garlic in olive oil and chop vegetables to add to it (just buy whatever looks delicious in the market) can make your pasta a bazillion times better...
Practice makes perfect (but getting started is pretty easy too)... :]
With one of these things going, one wonders how long your dog would continue to have hearing at 60Khz...
Of course, sometimes the decision is easy because you're bumping up against complexity limits to such a degree that you just can't fit any geographical reality on a map and still have something even remotely readable:
a lot of The Hobbit's issues were in the writing rather than direction, sure, a better director may have made it "less bad" but overall given the same script you'll get a similarly flawed set of films.
I don't disagree with this, but I think if GdT had directed, he would also have had a lot of influence over the script and general direction the movie went in. He's not just a hired gun.
Sadly, we'll never know for sure... TT
I dream about what might have resulted if studio politics hadn't driven Guillermo del Toro away from directing the Hobbit...
Whether or not it would have worked, who knows, but it almost certainly would have been something far, far, better than the thinly-veiled amusement-park ride that the Hobbit movie ended up turning into under Jackson's tutelage.
[Yeah there are lots of "what ifs" in the world, but for a while, a GdT Hobbit actually seemed like it was going to happen...]
In the end, it seems kind of irrelevant. Whether ad-blocking is "OK" or "not OK" certainly accounts for a lot of the arguing, but it probably won't play a huge part in determining whether people use ad-blockers or not.
I think the general public can be swayed by ethical arguments, but the threshold is pretty high, and an appeal to the financial well-being of companies almost certainly doesn't make the cut.
[Note that despite the enormous amount of money and effort that has been spent in an attempt to demonize copying of music/movies, the public still doesn't care a whit about those arguments, and copying is still generally considered a perfectly reasonable thing to do as long as you don't get caught.]
I used to do research at the local branch of some official government research library, and they were very strict about enforcing such limits; they kept track of who copied what, how much, and when. They did not lend, and if the limit was six pages and you wanted to copy seven pages you were out of luck... [there was some timeout, so you could come back some days later and copy the remaining pages, but man was it ever a pain...]
If you asked them why, they were decent enough to provide some sort of reasoned argument based on the actual copyright law to explain this policy, so I don't think they were just being jerks.
[This was in the UK, so I dunno if the laws were worse or better than in the U.S.]
Yup. "Safety in numbers" is definitely an important factor.
In the end, it's far more important (in terms of safety, as well as for other social goals that cycling promotes) to get people on bikes than it is to micromanage the way they do it.
It's worth nothing that helmet usage is extremely low in pretty much all the great cycling nations (Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, etc), all of which have cycling mode-share orders of magnitude greater than any place in the U.S.
[In Japan it is becoming increasingly common to see very young kids wearing bicycle helmets, especially when they're seated on their parent's bike, but they seem to stop wearing them sometime in their grade-school years.]
This is indeed one of the main reasons that modern cycling advocates generally consider helmet laws a bad thing.
Helmet laws make the general public less likely to cycle, and as many would then drive instead, thus have an overall negative effect on public health.
The main thing is that it's not just a medical issue, so citing medical studies isn't sufficient. Even if wearing a helmet decreases your injuries 100% of the time (and there are a few counterexamples to that), if a helmet law causes more deaths overall, it's still a bad law.
The main negative effect of helmet laws that I've seen cited is that they reduce the popularity of cycling as a transportation mode, and that can have extremely negative effects on public health (due to increased driving, reduced physical activity, and indirectly as a general damper on pro-cycling sentiment and infrastructure changes).
[I think Australia's helmet law is one of the main examples people talk about.]