throw0101d

Foldable wings have been on aircraft carriers for a while as well.

Use uuidv7 not uuid in general (typically v4)

7/4 'converters' have been featured on HN a few times:

* https://github.com/ali-master/uuidv47

* https://github.com/stateless-me/uuidv47

Thats because the people behind passkeys are paternalistic and don't trust users.

To be fair, trusting users with passwords/credentials is how we got into the mess of phishing et al in the first place.

Also note this from the spec:

A Public Key Credential Source’s generating authenticator determines at creation time whether the public key credential source is allowed to be backed up. Backup eligibility is signaled in authenticator data’s flags along with the current backup state. Backup eligibility is a credential property and is permanent for a given public key credential source. A backup eligible public key credential source is referred to as a multi-device credential whereas one that is not backup eligible is referred to as a single-device credential. See also § 6.1.3 Credential Backup State.

* https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-3/#backup-eligible

and depression :/

Regularly recommended on HN by folks:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46674.Feeling_Good

there's also a follow-up:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54930681-feeling-great

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” — https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/02/03/you-can/

An effective form of 'treatment' for depression/anxiety is to recognize that negative feels often don't come first, but rather we are doing actions that cause them, so you should do the positive things and this will reduce one's negative emotions:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54930681-feeling-great

So they took the cream of the crop in the US and tracked it for 80 years. Most of these people will never starve or have to choose a tier 3 education for their children. It's useful as a study, but mostly to demonstrate what matters for the affluent / well-off for their happiness.

1. Their (alleged) affluence was no guarantee of success or happiness.

2. There was a second study (with the two later merging) that followed boys from the rougher part(s) of town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glueck_Study

The referenced book looks at both cohorts.

Books on happiness (research) have become a bit of a thing in recent years, but Dunn seems to have published one of the earlier ones in 2013:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15803098-happy-money

I'd also recommend Morgan Housel's various writings:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/231148075-the-art-of-spe...

He had an interesting observation: the popular saying "don't spend money on things, but on experiences" only goes so far. Spending on things can bring about experiences: the big house/cabin/cottage per se may not bring you happiness, but if it's a place that you can gather family and friends, that can bring happiness/meaning. His first car didn't bring him happiness because it was a car (and not even fancy), but because of all the road trips he did with his friends in it.

Harvard has been running longitudinal studies for several decades:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Study

and their findings lean towards good relationships with family and friends are highly correlation with happiness, health, and many aspects of financial success. The released a book summarizing many results a few years ago:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61273746-the-good-life

* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive...

Genuine question: who, precisely, cares about "incentivising owner occupancy" as a policy goal? What interest does that serve and why should the government prioritize maximizing that metric?

Culturally, in many countries it helps with household formation (coupling, starting families), which, in an age of low birth rates, can be useful.

It got me thinking that maybe the home ownership, or having a place you can call yours […]

Do a search for "the housing theory of everything".

It has been an idea growing in popularity over the last few years, especially in the Anglo-sphere where housing/shelter costs seem to be worse than other places. (One hypothesis I've seen for this is because of Common law, which can give NIMBYs more power to challenge (new) things.)

Also at the same time complaining up 'mismanagement' of Canadian wildfires:

* https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/canadas-boreal-wildfires-a...

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48977607

US Tech does understand, US Administration does not.

US tech bros got a front-row seat, sitting in front of Cabinet picks, at the inauguration:

* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgpqeq82rvo

* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/trump-inaugu...

For 2.5 more years.

Who is going to trust US voters with not voting for a man-child?

Remember: Trump got in twice.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of options buried all over in nested upon nested options.

As the old saying: everyone needs just 20% of the features, but it's a different 20% for teach individual.

being an exec at apple for decades you probably pick up on a few things, even if they're beyond your department

It's also possible to lose touch (e.g., butterfly keyboards).

To build without tension you have to build structures that basically look like Roman structures [1]: a bunch of tightly spaces arches so that the entire thing is in compression, with no meaningful tension anywhere.

Until an earthquake occurs, and then all of those mostly-down forces turn into side-to-side forces.

Stainless steel rebar is a thing. It's expensive […]

That's an understatement. Fiberglass (GFRP) tops out at roughly US$ 2.50/foot, while SS can get up to $9:

* https://www.wellcoindustries.com/the-cost-of-rebar-and-the-c...

The low-end of plain steel rebar is $0.40.

Both sides are bad.

There were (then-)members of the Republican party who voted for Clinton, Biden, and Harris:

Conservative author David Frum, a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, announced Wednesday that he cast an early vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

* https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/303984-david-fr...

But she is a patriot. She will uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States. She will defend allies. She will execute the laws with reasonable impartiality. She may bend some rules for her own and her supporters’ advantage. She will not outright defy legality altogether. Above all, she can govern herself; the first indispensable qualification for governing others.

So I will vote for the candidate who rejects my preferences and offends my opinions. (In fact, I already have voted for her.) Previous generations accepted infinitely heavier sacrifices and more dangerous duties to defend democracy. I’ll miss the tax cut I’d get from united Republican government. But there will be other elections, other chances to vote for what I regard as more sensible policies. My party will recover to counter her agenda in Congress, moderate her nominations to the courts, and defeat her bid for re-election in 2020. I look forward to supporting Republican recovery and renewal.

* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...

That was in 2016.

Roman will generate approximately 1.4 terabytes of data per day, 11 terabits per day. Over five years, that adds up to about 20 petabytes.

Crikey.

At my last job I helped run some HPC where we had 11 PB, and I'm still in HPC and know some folks who got 29 PB of NVMe just before prices went crazy.

Hopefully the Roman backend folks locked in prices.

You act like there's no benefit to the user either, plenty of software gets better because of updates shipped after the fact.

There is a "release early, release often" line of thinking.

But I also think there is a risk of "fixing it in post(-production)" thinking: that lack of preparation and care can be patched over after-the-fact.

To what end? Pleasing a few nerds?

It's the nerds that the non-nerds/normies go to for advice on tech-y things. If you can generally make the nerds happy, and earn a good reputation among them, you'll have a customer base from which to expand from.

Or as Tim O'Reilly recommended back in the day, "Watching the Alpha Geeks":

* https://web.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/081119-stanfo...

* https://web.archive.org/web/20130000000000*/http://origin.co...

* https://www.oreilly.com/tim/archives/apple_wwdc2002.pdf

But I understand that it is a different kind of magic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-kqUkZnDcM (VW Cabrion Pink Moon ad)

I also found the 'night drive' ad to be interesting:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U9I7QrpSkk

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Milk_Wood

* https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0608221h.html

That sounds wonderful.

Except that rust is eating it and I'll have to replace it soon-ish.

The real problem was almost no one had a CD player not even in their car!

And here I am driving a 2003 Golf with a tape deck (and CD player).

The US went on permanent DST in the 1970s and support plummeted after the first winter in DST (which is why we're not on it anymore).

More recently Russia tried pDST and went away from it:

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/russia-state-d...

A more southern-lattitude country, Turkey, has stuck with pDST, though some folks don't/didn't like it because of enrichment allegations:

* https://www.turkishminute.com/2024/10/31/permanent-daylight-...

If no one cared about cash flow and profitability wouldn't SpaceX stock go up instead of down?

In addition to looking at the "fundamentals" of a company like cash flow and profitability, there is also a 'meta-game' that traders (as opposed to investors) have to look at:

A Keynesian beauty contest is a metaphorical beauty contest in which judges are rewarded for selecting the most popular choices among all judges, rather than those they may personally find the most attractive. This idea is often applied in financial markets, whereby investors could profit more by buying whichever stocks they think other investors will buy, rather than the stocks that have fundamentally the best value, because when other people buy a stock, they bid up the price, allowing an earlier investor to cash out with a profit, regardless of whether the price increases are supported by its fundamentals and theoretical arguments.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest

"whereby investors could profit more by buying whichever stocks they think other investors will buy, rather than the stocks that have fundamentally the best value"

Worth considering that "trading" and "investing" are different words. :)

IPOs are generally not a good investment, at least not relative to average market return:

However, a year later, we see that the majority of companies are either outperforming or underperforming the market by more than 10%. We also see that more companies are underperforming than beating the index (the red bars stretch below the 50% line).

That seems to indicate that for some companies, the initial IPO enthusiasm wanes or expected earnings are not met, and investors reprice the IPO to reflect the actual, slower growth of the company.

Three years after their IPO, we calculate that almost two-thirds of IPOs are underperforming the market, with most (64%) more than 10% behind the market’s returns.

* https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/what-happens-to-ipos-over-th...

56% of IPOs bought at the offer price lost money after 3 years. That number rises to 57% after five years. The numbers are higher when bought at the first day closing price: 60% lost money after 3 and 5 years. Worse than a coin flip.

Only 19% of IPOs doubled or more after three years and 22% after 5 years when bought at the offering price. The numbers were worse when bought at the closing price.

Of course, the lottery-like returns were possible, but it amounted to about 0.4% of all IPOs after 3 years and 1% after five years.

* https://novelinvestor.com/the-hype-and-hot-air-around-ipos/

Interview with a researcher that has looked at IPOs over the last few decades:

We’ve previously compared IPOs to lotteries that are prone to inflated valuations and low returns. Today we welcome “Mr. IPO,” Professor Jay Ritter onto the show for a deeper dive into IPO performance, for his insights into SPACs, and to hear his research into why economic growth doesn’t correlate with stock returns. Early in the episode, Jay unpacks how long-term IPO returns perform against first-day trading. While exploring the role that venture capital plays in tech IPOs, Jay talks about why negative earnings don’t affect tech IPOs in the short-term before sharing how skewness factors tend to impact young companies. Reflecting on how IPOs are usually underpriced, Jay discusses how the interests of companies are not aligned with the interests of IPO underwriters. After looking into IPO allocation, Jay compares the 2020 ‘hot IPO market’ with the internet bubble of the late 90s. Later, we ask Jay about what special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) are and why they’ve exploded in recent years. His answers highlight their investing benefits, risks, and why SPACs might be a better option for companies than IPOs. We examine how SPACs have historically performed and then jump into our next topic; why economic growth isn’t a good indicator that a country is worth investing in. He touches on why returns don’t correlate with economic growth, the place of capital gains and dividend yields when investing abroad, and how innovations in an industry can lead to higher stock returns. We wrap up our conversation by asking Jay for his take on whether the stock market is efficient before hearing how he defines success in his life. Tune in to hear our incredible and informative talk with Jay Ritter.

* https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/139

Picking individual winning stocks can be hard:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_Free...