RobertRoberts

Thanks, that is a rational explanation for the trend I've been seeing. (it's been years of this, just recently it feels like another up-tick...)

Fair enough, I may have skirted a line with my comment.

So, if it's true that HN is being targetted (give me a moment of leeway here) should we go to Reddit or elsewhere to discuss it? (serious question, as it seems like that is not really allowed here because of a ironic set of rules that protect careful actors)

Edit: Previous comment should read -- "...is proof Phillips was _NOT_ designed with it to begin with."

I agree, here's their original patent:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US1908081A/en

The designers own statements of requiring "zero vertical angle" to avoid cam-out/throw-out is proof Phillips was designed with it to begin with.

The patent change later only added _more_ cam-out/throw-out, it did not introduce it in 1942.

Also, the 1942 patent represents the modern Phillips (which is what everyone would acknowledge is the problem screw), where the original 1932 patent looks more like a Reed and Prince.

I am really surprised people are calling this a story or narrative. I found factual statement made by the designers in their own patents that "throw-out" (their phrasing similar to cam-out) is intentional to protect against wrecking screws or tooling with use with clutched automatic screw drivers.

Sections 7.35 to 7.55 discuss this here:

https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=7&docid=02474994&IDKey...

Edit: As a side note, they point out that _all_ screws have throw-out, and the only way to not is to have "zero vertical angle is used on all engaging driving faces or the friction between the driver and the recess walls is greater than the axial component of the driving torque." (Section 7.15 in the link above)

They acknowledge that it's possible, but it's not done in their design intentionally.

I found the original designs that are part of the patent, it was designed to cam out.

Edit: I guess the very original patent was edited to _add_ the cam out? I may be wrong on this, but my research showed that the automated screwdrivers on assembly lines did not have good torque controls and therefore were wrecking screws (early 1900s?) and so the cam-out feature was added to help with this problem.

In the distant past (when the other monkey games came out) if you loved something you could put out effort to say something nice about it. But if you didn't like it, you wouldn't bother.

Now the threshold for complaining about or trash talking something is nearly zero, so here we have everyone on equal speech/public platform footing and we hear everything. It's sad, but also reality.

He would have quit after the first game (1990?) if the internet was as widely accessible and used back then.

Also, I was hit by bugs around lakes and swamps just riding a bike. Walking some places was unbearable because of bugs my entire childhood.

They are almost all gone now, clear as can be.

Unless you have an old car from the 70s (I did for a long time) and the results were the same.

Also, bumpers and grills were covered in moths, butterflies and grasshoppers, etc... when I was a kid. Not anymore, not for a long time.

A diet assumes that you are abstaining from something "normal" or "common" at some personal expense.

I'd argue it's not a diet, it's "avoid damaging your body with toxins" and very valid and useful life choice.

> This sounds ideal, but I wonder what their secret is to pulling it off in practice.

Their lives depend on it? When a group works in extreme environments (of any kind) cohesion, order and unity are likely something that could be the difference between success and failure. (my assumptions based on armchair logic and some life experience)

Also, I have no problems asking people's opinion when I am leading, but I don't have to act on it. But I really appreciate "boots on the ground" opinions, because they always have a different perspective than those leading from a distance.

But did they know there was war in Ukraine for years? I suspect this is common knowledge in Europe, but it's extremely rare knowledge here.

I live in the US, and so far the only people that knew are the very few news skeptics that follow international news sources online. And even then, we had to share with each other a lot.

But I had watched documentaries about Ukraine years ago, and since most people watch only Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, etc... they knew nothing at all.

So when Russia invaded most people were shocked, where I, and those few others that were information, were not as suprised.

Yes, it was the morning after the Russian invasion. I just wasn't on the internet. Before that moment, Russia was just posturing on the border.

This is my point, it's easy to just not know something at any point in time, let alone some things you will only know if you have varying news sources, even if it's many years old.

How many of your friends, family and acquaintances know about the civil war in Ukraine for the nearly past decade?

See this is the problem. While I follow plenty of international news, I didn't know this.

There is often times just too much to know to fully understand a situation. So how can anyone form a valid opinion?

As a follow up, was the election of Victor Yanukovych lawful? If not, then why not point out he was a puppet from a manipulated election? That would be worth a coupe, but not because you disagree with his politics, that's just insanity. Look what Trump believed and supported, we didn't start civil war because Trump wouldn't sign a treaty and he was accused of being a Russian puppet too. There is just more to this story than you are letting on.

Yes, I didn't know there was an invasion when asked about Ukraine, but I knew about the past history. (some at least)

Today's innocuous data is tomorrow's political target.

I don't want law enforcement having _any_ of my health/medical data. Without an even playing field this can turn into another "privacy for me but not for thee" situation.

I was asked "What are we going to do about Ukraine!?" And I said, "It's a civil war that's been going on for almost 10 years, what is different now?" and their response was "what? I'd never heard that." And I added, "In 2014 there was an overthrow of an elected president there and it started the war." Blank stares.

I have a friend who traveled to Europe regularly for tech training, including Ukraine, and he was surprised about how little people know what is going because people's news sources are so limited. (mostly by choice I assume)

No special tech needed to manipulate people, just lack of multiple information sources?

The difference from now is that back then there was an army of dedicated tech oriented people that _knew_ MS and IE were a problem that needed to be resisted.

Try using offline first features that all browsers support properly except iOS Safari. Pure tech issue.

The only programmers that had issues with IE were when IE broke something they needed, it hardly matters what it was. Apples to apples comparisons are the relevant issue.

So if your PWA works on iOS/Safari, great for you, but it doesn't mean everyone's does.

I certainly did. I used a lot of features in Netscape that IE never had, and at university it was _the_ browser used on campus in the late 90s.

IE 5 was a buggy browser lacking a lot of features, but was used often by people not building things online. And forced on people by bizarre site requirements. Though this came worse with IE6.

Microsoft was embroiled in legal issues of their browser at this time, and anyone with a sense of logic (most programmers) could see being locked into one piece of software instantly degrades the value of that software.

Sept 2002 was when Phoenix was released.[0]

IE 6 came out only a year before Phoenix.[1] And you if you were involved with Slashdot back in the day you were tracking browser usage as a daily trend. Phoenix was doing well.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6

If the one key feature in an iOS webapp _kills_ your business, then _yes_ iOS/Safari is magnitudes worse than IE ever was.

The expectations and businesses relying on browser functionality back then is minimal compared to today which amplifies the core issues at hand.

Try building an PWA with offline capabilities (trivial in modern browsers) that's your core of your business, and you will see what I see. Apple is _trying_ to strangle non-app store apps. Where IE was just a dumb lumbering problem by comparison.

That is a subject statement, many people I knew preferred Netscape and then Phoenix.

It's not the same at all, IE/Safari are/were locked to their OS or abused through monopoly.

iOS/Safari is worse than IE because it's exclusive. At least with IE/Windows you could install something else.

IE was "solid" as long as you only worked inside it's constraints.

Not all developers hated IE either.

You are right, it's worse because the problem is more hidden and therefore a lot harder to solve.

At least in the IE days everyone _knew_ IE was a problem, so we were looking for a solution as a community. Now? We comments that are dismissive of crap instead of inspiring towards quality.

Would you rather live near a nuclear accident or a solar farm/wind turbine accident?

A simple consideration shows nuclear accidents are above and beyond the worst humans have ever experienced. There is no comparison, not even a close second.

> Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity

Until there is an accident, then it's literally the worst.