Carpetsmoker

You can just use <br>

This is also very advantageous in diffs; diff-ing a Markdown file with many 1000+ character lines is rather hard.

HTML tables are hard to write, read, and edit though. If you want to make the document easily readable both as HTML and Markdown (quite useful for a README, I think) then it's not a very good option.

Emojis are fundamentally different, as they're essentially just codepoints being displayed. That's fairly easy to implement, as every system has been doing that for years. What you're proposing would require massive rewrites of a lot of software.

I'm also not sure it would even be better; I've never encountered a graphical editor that didn't make me want to throw my computer out the window; stuff like text becoming bold when I don't want it, adding to a list (especially with copy/paste), etc. all tends to be quite annoying and stuff I need to think about. With Markdown, I don't really need to think about the formatting, not more than regular typographic formatting anyway (paragraphs, punctuation, etc.)

> numbers should probably be shift-typed

I tried this for a week several years ago; it was not a success. Aside from all the muscle memory re-learning, I also found that I used the number more often than I had thought.

What I do these days just make Vim abbreviations; for example 1= becomes !=, ;= becomes :=, etc.

> I'm seriously wondering whether there is a better chance of establishing a reasonable dialogue with China than to stop you guys from messing stuff up.

IMHO China is much much worse, ranging from censorship (often over very small issues, like comparing Xi Jinping to Winnie the Pooh resulting in all of Winnie the Pooh being blacklisted), to the massive invasive surveillance state they've got and are expanding, to things like the concentration camps in Xinjiang.

For all the faults in the current US political landscape, it is still vastly better than China.

The current administration will go away, but I don't see the forces that put him in power going away any time soon. I can't predict the future, but I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the last clearly unsuitable Republican president the US will see.

Considering that Trump wants to keep manufacturing in the US (big issue during the campaign, no comment on whether this is a good or bad policy), this seems rather unwise in the long run. Basically he's showing that the US is an unreliable partner. I know these are exceptional circumstances, but there may be other exceptional circumstances in a few years time. I would think twice before establishing my manufacturing plants in the US.

Sending spam on the gmail web UI is considerably harder than a few lines of shell script needed to spam over SMTP. And arguably, the web UI should really add the same Received headers.

If host A is using gmail to spam me, then I can block host A, but if gmail would remove this I can only block all of gmail (or the gmail account, but a new account will be created 2 seconds later, whereas creating new IPs is much harder).

I'm all for privacy and prevention of leaking data such as IP addresses, but there are other concerns, as well, which I often see "privacy advocates" forget about. Maybe there is a better way to solve this problem than including the IP address – I would be all for it – but this post doesn't mention any of this.

Unfortunately, 100% privacy is often open to abuse from malicious actors, and a balance needs to be struck.

BTW: you can make a similar argument about the stamps the post office puts on your letters, which often includes the location and may be "private information".

Which is pretty much the entire point of QUIC, since updating gazillions of network appliances to support newer versions of TCP is rather hard and will take decades, if not longer. With QUIC, that's no longer needed.

Yes, but if Google does it it's worse ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It only works well if you have a decent amount of large enterprise customers (like RedHat); I don't think it will work out well for GitLab, which is mostly aimed at small-to-medium businesses. I don't think it's viable for most projects (otherwise they would be using it).

Even if it is viable, you're usually leaving a lot of money on the table, and even Red Hat – the poster child of this model – does stuff like releasing updates to paying customers first.

The alternative is GitLab not being able to hire developers to actually build GitLab since the "kindly ask to please pay"-model doesn't really work very well.

"The community" is often vastly overrated anyway IMHO. Patches are always good, of course, but people who actually consistently invest time in a project are exceedingly rare. You can't build a product based on sporadic patches. Besides, a lot of the time "the community" is just users (people with no contributions) complaining you're not doing stuff right.

Unless you have a viable (preferable proven) model that allows GitLab to hire developers and keep everything 100% open source, it seems to me this is the best and most balanced option. To the best of my knowledge, such a model doesn't really exist.

I continue to be surprised at the hesitancy (or even outright hostility) whenever someone tries to make an economically viable open source product, which usually involves things not being 100% open source because turns out, that's the only way to make things viable. "90% open source" is a hell of a lot better than 0% open source in my book.

Rather makes sense, because for many open source projects with a single or handful or contributors it's not a very important feature, but for larger teams (i.e. companies) it is, which ensures they pay their fair share while still keeping the product available for free for most of us.

Ireland, using the hotel's own website. Jurys Inn in Cork, in case you want to avoid it :-)

I would imagine that repairing it would mean it'll be out of commission for a few hours up to a few days, for example by waiting until the repair techs arrive or whatnot, interrupting regular operations. Depending on how the costs are counted, even just a few hours can quickly catch up if you add all the personal costs of the sailors on the ship etc.

It's the same with things like outages, an outage lasting a day may "cost" $1 million, but what's actually meant is that you missed $1 million in profits for the day, not that you had to pay $1 million. If operating a carrier costs $400k/day then you could say then fixing something for a day "costs" $400k, but that's kind of a simplistic way of putting it.

My guess would be that this figure also includes costs for downtime and the like, but that's just a guess. Would be interested to see a more detailed breakdown of the $400k.

I once accidentally entered the wrong checkout day when booking a hotel (one day too many); I immediately emailed and phoned them within minutes: they could not change the date, and had to pay one day extra.

Work was paying, but don't really like spending other people's money, and what a terrible service.

The biggest plus AirBnB tends to give over hotels is having your own kitchen, and not having to rely on restaurants. In my experience many hotels are essentially just a room with a bed and some uncomfortable furniture; not a great place to be for a week IMHO.

AirBnB essentially just copied Couchsurfing and added money to it, pretending it was a new innovative "disruptive" idea (although the platform has since evolved a bit).

There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I just dislike all their Jobs-esque bullshit about it, pretending they single-handedly "innovated" the platform, which they didn't.

Do you know any of the details of the case? I can't find it with a quick search. Genuine question.

Any judgement of this without knowing the details is misinformed.

At the same time, people are the product of our environment, so ignoring that context would also be foolish. Of course, it's easier to blame a child and sentence him to two decades of prison instead of actually fixing the urban hellholes they grew up in, so we end up with years of solitary confinement and these kind of comments on HN :-/

This kind of selection bias applies to everything, e.g. you don't see the news stories media doesn't report on.

I think this kind of thinking is roughly analogous to "why buy a phone now, when the latest model will be released next year"? Or, perhaps more on-topic, "why do any astronomical observation with this telescope when we will have a better one in a few years"?

I think the viability of efficient is a big "if", and will depends on a lot of factors (not just engineering ones, also social, environmental, and economical ones).

Oh yeah, sometimes people confuse length with ... all sorts of things.

Actually, I used to think that in order for a weblog post to be worth it, it has to be "of substance", and thus "of length". Clearly those are not the same, but luckily I have corrected my thinking in this regard :-)

I have no idea what you mean with that?

Observational evidence does not suggest this is happening. Otherwise this article and discussion thread would not exist (or look very different).

Paying someone to go on a date with me just seems weird. Either you're keen to go on a date or you're not, but if I have to pay someone then I'm not even interested.

Which makes perfect sense, because for woman reproduction/sex is a high-investment affair, whereas for men it's not. You see this all across the animal kingdom where males do all sorts of stuff to poach females.

Humans are really no different, and you can't just override billions of years of evolution with some anti-conception and an app.