Senderman

If I can keep my hands on the keyboard all the time, life gets a whole lot better.

If the answer turned out to be Intel, would you overlook the misleading 28-core demo the article discusses?

In GDPR-land here, the site pushes a modal covering the content that lets you configure trackers. I'm no Phoenix Wright, but it looks like compliance to me.

Well, at least you got a prize.

All I got was a modal I had to remove with the element inspector.

I was programming for a few years before I first encountered C, and that was almost 2 decades ago. I don't think it's that uncommon.

Criterion.

fwiw, the phone in the complaint is from 2018.

I genuinely think that's a good response.

Maybe the majority of recipients won't act, or they'll even take offense, but if somebody in there chose to contact you because they look up to your position, you could easily find in a few years that you challenged somebody to get on the right track with one of those responses. Some people are on the fence and looking for a push.

Obviously it's up to you, but I think it's worth a shot.

It sounds to me like you should have a prewritten response for people who were interested enough to contact you, but who don't know where to start.

I see your point. I had never thought of 'clarity' as being synonymous with 'utility', but I can't argue with it.

Keep going!

Don't forget: There's nothing bad about no-response - People are much more likely to respond on the web and email when you're wrong. ;)

I have to disagree with the author of that paragraph. Concepts usually get diluted as they pass from person to person, not more clear. They also mention there is often times a "debatable" aesthetic value - to me, that's all the more reason to at least look at the original work and make your own interpretation.

You are so right. I've been saying my whole life that if animators would just make their characters bald, the manhours we would recoup as a species would be truly transformative.

This is great, wish I'd seen something like this when I was first interested in C. Most introductions are afraid to go into anything complicated, which is ultimately patronising to a reader and doesn't help in the long term.

Subtly sexist comments mixed in with otherwise compelling information tend to be irksome.

The commenter may have called it a "blank page", but Safari doesn't; it just labels the setting as "New tabs open with...", with "Empty page" being one of the choices.

I hope this doesn't come across as mean-spirited, but I'm really struck by the middle part of your comment, even though I think it was meant as a throwaway remark.

It sounds like you're advocating leaving an organisation instead of speaking up when a mistake is being made? In the scenario you described, the "a GET is fine" person is unfamiliar with the protocol they're writing for (HTTP), and so is every person who agreed. Leaving instead of speaking up seems pretty drastic.

If I recall, Safari's default is to show your "favourites" screen in a new tab, which routinely refetches to update icons/previews.

I'm skeptical that it's "every time" but I do remember it doing it way more than I thought was needed.

It strikes me as imbalanced to do away with artificial light at night, but to then do nothing about artificial darkness during the day: She spent most of the experiment indoors, working in an office.

It sounds like you're agreeing with the original comment, but I think you might be paraphrasing it to highlight the absurdity.

And it does seem absurd, but it's true: almost everyone has been conditioned to accept news footage as 'pure' truth, something at the other end of a reality-scale from, say, movies.

I think it's hard to remember is that the majority of video is tailored with intent to evoke specific a response: To some degree, your reaction and emotions are at the mercy of the video producer - just like in a movie. Except in a movie, you have the safety switch of remembering it's "not real" - I think the lack of a corresponding mental failsafe with news causes subtle hysteria, confusion, and frustration.

Contrary to a lot of conspiracy, I don't think it's malicious (mostly), and I believe fundamentally journalism has noble goals - but I don't see it as deniable that "news" as a whole is under pressure to be compelling, and that, albeit subtly, twists what we're exposed to.

Crying "be more sceptical" isn't very helpful - it certainly wouldn't have helped me. I think more knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes of newsmaking might be more along the lines of what would help people, but I don't really know.

"Fake" almost isn't the right word. "Disconnected from reality" - subtly - that's the phenomenon causing trouble, in my view. But anything that's disconnected from reality, taken as truth, is open to manipulation; scepticism is appropriate.

You are not the only one who finds it insane.

A video is recorded, cut, and was subject to selection bias to begin with when somebody hit record; not to mention that the subset of things that are easier to record get moved to the front of the line.

Even if you accept the counter-argument that 'unaltered footage' is 'more real' - the entire act of passing a video around, by media, by people, by whomever - is, to me, far removed from the reality of being an eye-witness.

A 'click-bait' headline can be technically true, but there's a reason people take issue with them.

Maybe "fake" is too evocative of digital or selective editing - I feel you're describing a more subtle form of "fakeness" - the subtle loss of reality as something is encapsulated in text, video, etc. and relayed to someone who didn't witness the original.

That, or I'm projecting how I feel about the subject.

I'll add that, for me sometimes, and for a lot of people I know, it's easy to fall into the trap of getting emotionally worked up about some piece of evidence gleaned from the 'net, taking it in as real information, instead of taking it dispassionately as a simulacrum.

He was riffing - the 3rd line is "It’s a quote from Douglas Adams."

At least, as it appeared in the comments on HN.

Pretty sure you're not both talking about the same thing.

This line of discussion causes, to me, funny quirks of logic.

"If you take reality to be right here, right now (what else could it be?)" - can't disagree!

But, after that, things start to get self-referential in tangled ways - "time cannot exist, it just helps us map change" - but 'change' requires time! And 'mapping' is a mental act that involves change!

I can't help but feel that if these apparent contradictions were ironed out, the answer to 'what is time?' would be close by.

Seems infinite so far.

"Pointing" is the part of the picture time is in.

If you take out time, you can't point to the coffee: you'd be stuck not-pointing!

State-change received and confirmed. Thank you for updating the universe.

Not to interfere with any internal screaming, but I think (hope?) most would agree that a secondary elephant in the room is that suppressing knowledge so as not to help the "bad guys" tends to be the worse evil.

> Doing the lord's work

It's called "social good" nowadays.

> Yes, surely those people bear no responsibility around their personal level of civic engagement.

"Those people" started this thread and asked for specifics.

> Find groups that interest you and are effective in their mission.

That's what the poster is doing.

I don't disagree with your sentiment; the answer to "how do I do good?" isn't just going to be handed to you. I suppose I was prompted to jump in because I think somebody might otherwise confuse your comment for being a useful answer to the original topic.