Macha

I was there in the early 2010s and we did have older versions of AIM, netscape in an archive CVS (svn was the day to day system when I started). But then we moved to git and only stuff that had a designated owner got moved from cvs/svn to git so there was another round of losing old source code. And another in the migration to yahoo systems post merger.

And in many companies, if they move at a responsible speed (rather than the speed the AI vendors promise, if you let their tools work in yolo mode), that person will get replaced by someone who will just yolo it

> It looks like that phrase was removed from the article, but that is standard for C-level jobs.

Isn't the standard they get a made up advisor role for some months? Though usually that involves the ex-C-level to understand the implicit expectation of not starting immediately at the next place.

It only works backwards (though you can probably get away with it if your future dates are not too far forward). There are ~10 tzdb updates a year due to rule changes and if you bake a date on the other side of one to UTC too early then your app is going to have incorrect datetimes

My experience is (despite the Postgres developer's advice to use it), timestamptz is largely a useless data type since it is just a wrapper around conversion to UTC.

- Are you storing past events? Just store them as UTC. Maybe you use timestamptz to do it for you, but it's actually a more obtuse interface for that than timestamp

- Are you storing future UTC times? Great, just use UTC, see above

- Are you storing future human times? Then timestamptz is actively harmful because it eagerly converts to UTC so even if you get an updated tzdb in time for when the event comes due, you don't know what happened at write time so now your datetime is ambiguous. It's less broken to use a plain timestamp + string timezone column (if you need to sort by it, maybe a denormalized _utc column too, with the understanding that you'll need to regenerate it or accept slight off-by-one errors when you update the tzdb, but at least you can do this when you know what the input value was, unlike with timestamptz)

A few weeks ago, I was googling a quote from morrowind because so many NPCs were saying it at the beginning of the game that my thought was either I was running into a mod induced bug with voice line selection or else this quote must have been memed to hell.

The quote was basically “go away and stop bothering me”, which is said when your character has no faction reputation.

Anyway, Google seemed to think I was having an attack of paranoia and suggested I seek mental help.

BSD was under a cloud of a lawsuit at the early stages of corporate adoption of open source operating systems and by the time that was resolved network effects had given Linux too much of a lead.

Obviously it's hard to predict the opinions of the dead, and I think a lot of the disagreement here comes from whether they view his ideas as being motivated by anti-copyright as a standalone idea or part of a larger pro-little-guy stance. I think depending on which you think it was, you can come to a different idea of what his view would be on open models. But surely both views would lead to an anti-closed models stance? Would a hypothetical generation later Aaron want to publish the weights for Claude rather than academic publisher articles?

And yet I expect the QOL for the median French person to be higher than the median Mississipian.

The interesting part IMO is less the XSS on the streamer's overlay, but the fact that it could escape the browser source web page into local code execution (via a combination of OBS disabling the chromium sandbox, and using an outdated CEF version)

I mean, Japan's experience with colonialism was decidedly on the colonist side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperit...

> Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places,

There are a very large contingent on HN who are against restrictions on corporate activities because they envision themselves as potential beneficiaries of a low regulation environment. Many of them also apparently view criticism itself as a restriction.

I think we can blame google for the login with google prompts given they provide an SDK for that exact use case.

Not while the spec has provisions to allow sites to mandate certain providers.

I worked there around that time, and a little later. The company had recently ish gotten independent and was actually pretty optimistic. The basic plan was to use the clearly dying dialup business to fund new businesses in media and ads, and there was even hope that the mail and search stuff could be turned around. I think the ads and media stuff broadly worked, most of the media businesses are still going though they were divested by AOL and later Yahoo. The ads stuff did ultimately have a shelf life as the industry consolidated more on Google and Facebook but that was many years away from 2014. Mail and search were eventually merged into their yahoo counterparts post merger.

People at AOL realized how the brand was that of a "wow you still exist" so were pretty good at not putting it too intrusively on new or acquired products. Good for those products, bad for the chances of revitalizing the brand. One of the interesting things post-merger with Yahoo was how much Yahoo people had not adopted the same attitude about their own brand.

The post is about gitlab but on the subject of GitHub, the rate limit I seem to have for viewing commit history seems to be 0 for logged out users and viewing source files seems to be about 5/hour.

I mean, what you're trying to minimise is (frequency of misuse x consequences of misuse). signalised intersections target the frequency element, roundabouts target the consequences.

I wonder, does the song have more fans today because of Jojo, or because of fans from when Yes were in their prime?

I will say 2 lanes roundabouts as a cyclist are a little intimidating when you need to take the inside lane. Drivers are not looking for cyclists the way they look for cars or will rush to get ahead of you or just try to bully you out of the way by entering the roundabout across you illegally and daring you to take the right of way. At particularly busy examples I will dismount and take the pedestrian crossing.

Junctions have their own problems though: Usually drivers will not permit a cyclist to merge in front of them while traffic is not stopped, which means if the stream of traffic is continuous you need to plan your lane change when traffic is stopped by lights.

As a pedestrian, roundabouts with islands (aka all roundabouts here) are vastly superior.

> Which sucks if it's 4-lanes or really busy or fast or there's no sidewalk provision for that (like in the case of roundabouts at highway ramps) and is just a lot more walking to begin with.

I mean, it depends on your standards for roundabout. We didn't put highways through town centres so largely highway ramps and pedestrians are mutually exclusive scenarios here. Where pedestrian crossings exist, there's usually (a) an island and (b) 2 lanes prior to the island, splitting to 4 lanes either where the traffic is already slowed or past the island, which makes it much more pleasant than crossing at an equivalent junction. Also as a driver, it means you've cleared the pedestrian area before you have to consider/deal with the cross direction drivers as there's a small waiting area post-pedestrian-crossing/pre-roundabout.

If you're stuck because you already have a highway in your urban core and need pedestrians to safely cross the highway, then you are pretty much limited to overpasses and underpasses.

As a European, that roundabout intersection looks fine? It might be slightly annoying to have to use all three roundabouts if you're exiting the highway northbound and want to take the southbound local road, but with the amount of exits there I can't imagine a junction would be better.

Largely because the auto correction is needed to undo the damage caused by the tap target shenanigans.

Yeah, I’m not a dedicated iPhone user and my personal phones are androids so my iOS experience has been iPod Touch 2G -> employer owned iPhone 8 -> employer owned iPhone XR -> iPad Air M3. Each of those big gaps have seen the UI shift and the keyboard decline.

Poor word choices. Backwards "corrections" that are incorrect.

Would have been totally gaslit by my iPad on this only I have an android phone to compare my typing accuracy on.

The best way to put it is it really wants to type what it wants to type, and if you deviate from that it will often end up just ignoring it. Whether it's the dynamic tap zones as mentioned elsewhere, or just auto correcting backwards and changing words you've already typed. Also when you go back and change a word it will also often insert additional spaces around the changed word. Or worse still if you mistype a word like say banana then backspan to ban and retype ana, it will display banana... Until you hit space and it turns it into "ban ana".

I think there’s a few big differences between OpenAI and Automattic:

On the “good for the board” side:

1. OpenAI from the POV of investors has both a pretty high p(massive returns) and a pretty high p(no returns). Even if they’re convinced AI is going to swallow the economy, that doesn’t mean OpenAI wins that. This discourages risky moves.

2. The range in outcomes from a Matt-less Automattic are much less varied than for OpenAI. Replacing him isn’t going to sink the company but it’s also not going to have a massive increase in valuation. It’s purely a decision that he’s a risk factor with his behaviour.

3. I’m sure there’s many good staff members in Automattic, but the work they do is pretty standard and understood, so there’s fewer irreplaceable individuals if any of them quit in support of Matt.

4. Because OpenAI is relatively new and has had such high growth, there were both a lot of true believers among the staff that it had to be Altman, and people who had a significant portion of their net worth locked into yet untradable shares that did not want the boat rocked.

5. What openAI hopes to achieve in marketing and policy requires a figurehead and only Altman had mass recognition. Matt’s public awareness is much lower and Automattic’s need for a public facing figurehead is lower.

In the pro-Matt factors:

1. Altman did not have an outright majority of the shares, Matt does

2. He did somewhat prepare by doing waves of voluntary severance to get his internal opponents to leave

If you’re inclined to see everything as a diversion and all criticism as inorganic, then I think it’s better to admit you just want someone to confirm your views and you’re not really looking to be convinced, as much as you phrased your question that way

The reality is that the board has the votes to remove Matt as CEO and Matt has enough shares that if the board is decided by simple 1 vote per share then he can replace them but without knowing the agreements with its investors and shareholders we don’t know if the boards mechanisms actually allow him to replace all the members. Since the company is privately traded, these aren’t published anywhere, so it’s unknowable for those of us in the peanut gallery (unless it eventually goes to court, which is likely unless those agreements are decisive).

This seems pretty easily explainable by Matt’s actions appearing to be hypocritical and antithetical to the views of people likely to comment on Internet message boards. People value stability from infrastructure providers and Matt’s antics with wordpress.org during the WPEngine dispute salted the earth for his chances of getting support in a board dispute. Even Matt’s own previous posting here did him no favours.

Sometimes a broadly one sided reaction is just a broadly one sided reaction, no conspiracy needed.