abanana

  We calculated this positive feedback percentage using the total number of positive and negative ratings...
  Positive feedback: 189647
  Negative feedback: 9...
  189647 / ( 189647 + 9 ) = 100%

Where do you get that from? Is this a confusion with dates spoken or written out in full as "March the 9th, 2023"? We're talking numeric form here, "090323" in the specific example, and I don't think the UK has ever used MDY for numeric forms.

Usability breaks the look of my design, so I'll break usability! Obviously it's more important that everyone sees my amazing graphic design skills, than that they can actually use it!

I'd agree personally, but when you look at the huge success of things like WinAmp's themes back in the day, there clearly is (was?) a large market for it.

I recall scripts ending up as little as one-third the size of vanilla JS, when rewritten using jQuery (where the website was otherwise using jQuery anyway).

They both came from wealthy families. Of course they worked hard and applied themselves fully, without ever having money worries to distract them. But let's not perpetuate that cliché that it's purely down to "hard work", like the trope from rich people's self-marketing autobiographies. "It's all down to my hard work, nothing to do with my rich family, really, nobody works as hard as me"! People all over the world work very very hard, some much harder than these people, and don't have the privilege of wealthy families to fall back on.

To clarify: correcting and clarifying isn't begrudging or complaining. Same for those of us who know we won't attain it because we don't have that privilege. They enjoy it, good luck to them.

astrocized - banished to outer space.

True in general, but Hacker News isn't a school for beginners to technology.

Does that say something about steps required in our own maturation processes?

That seriously needs some optimising. For example: on click, could the bigger image be inserted behind the small one so it's hidden; on load of the bigger image, hide the smaller image; then do the slide-bigger transition with both images together?

It's true, the amount of work that would be needed nowadays has made the idea of building a new browser engine almost impossible (I don't know how the Ladybird devs are getting on). It's a reason to encourage people to support Firefox on desktop, since just about everything else is based on the other browser engine. I still miss Opera's Presto - we don't want to lose another one, or there'll be no competition at all.

But as we've already crossed that threshold where the workload is preventing new engines from being built: choosing not to use new features, after they've been added to all the existing browser engines, isn't going to help that situation in any way.

If it's part of a paragraph of insightful commentary, it's meaningful. On its own it's not, it appears as though the poster chose to copy-and-paste a cliché instead of bothering to tell us what their specific disagreement even is (perfectly reasonable sarcasm from the sibling comment notwithstanding).

If I clicked it to open it, then if I want to close it, I'll click it again. Don't hide content I might still be reading!

I've always said I'm sure any politics university course must be based on the art of exaggeration. It's just what politicians do, so there's no way this one subject could be the sole one where they didn't. To make any point, they'll cherry-pick the least reliable studies, make examples of the outliers to imply they're the norm, use statistical obfuscation, etc. Graphs in the news were blatant - taking a line graph that was fluctuating up and down, and extrapolating by continuing the last tiny upward movement into a long straight line upwards, entirely ignoring the story the graph was really telling us.

Misclassifying at least some flu deaths as Covid (due to the way symptoms were diagnosed at speed by a single doctor each time, all need for checking removed) appears to have been one way the figures were at least slightly inflated.

It was clear throughout how politicians were determined to find the data to confirm the initial predictions.

Slight exaggeration is far removed from "hoax", but is still a bad thing for anyone who's like to know the real figures.

"MOAR input!!!"

- Johnny 5, Short Circuit. That was a great film. Seems it was unexpectedly prescient too.

> Anthropic said: "None of our data acquisition programmes buy and destroy rare or antiquarian books."

This statement was clearly carefully worded, using the words "rare or antiquarian" to mean "pre-1966, pre-ISBN". Their statement is answering a question that wasn't asked, so that (if they need to) they can claim in the future that they never said they weren't destroying books with ISBNs.

What are these pseudoscientific and mystical beliefs you've read before and apparently mistakenly applied to this post (because they sound interesting, if only in a "WTF?" kind of way)? I can't make head or tail of what you think his meaning is, and given the downvotes, it seems others can't either.