athrun

newsflash: point of sales transactions can usually be processed offline, and settled at a later point in time.

Merchant A might be unable to process while offline, while Merchant B next door will have no such issue.

I personally think it's because in many ways we're not building native, snappy, keyboard-driven desktop apps any longer.

Everything is moving to the web or web-like. Most of the apps I use at work are web-based and mouse-heavy. The overall slowness and latency of the UI is killing me.

TUI apps represent a weird niche. People building them are _usually_ into providing a UX that is fast, productive, offline-first and composable (ie: lends itself to automation). It's a breath of fresh air.

Stripe doesn’t rule disputes. The card issuer does.

No. People in the meeting are supposed to read the document _during_ the meeting—no pre-reading required.

This does not mean there weren’t a lot of back and forth between a lot of people to come up with the final memo.

AFAIK there's no need to show IDs to board a train in Europe (maybe some EU countries have other rules there, I don't know).

For planes it will depend on whether you're crossing a border or not. Sometimes you get ID checks on domestic flights but that's because of airline policies (ie: fraud, insurance) rather than internal border control.

The counter-argument to this is that driving a 2-ton machine capable of killing people is not a fundamental right either.

I'm not saying that this isn't a privacy overreach and I think there are other things we can do to limit speeds (road design, etc.), but I think there's a reasonable balance to be found here.

To me, I felt this take was so disconnected from my reality as a user that I didn't even know where to start.

Looking at the author bio, I can see he's very invested in the Blink project so it's difficult to shake the feeling that by arguing for "browser diversity", he's simply pushing for increased Blink dominance.

If one truly wanted to get more diversity in the Browser space, the number one objective should be getting Google to divest from the Chrome project. This would finally create space for other players to come in and have real influence over the future of the web.

As it is today, everything Web-related gravitates around what Google wants. Apple is not playing ball, and so Google is getting the community to push regulators to intervene and make them kneel.

Well, that's my view at least, maybe I'm too cynical.

> Dominant means a majority.

My full sentence was qualifying what I meant by "becoming dominant" here: "meaning that most greenfield projects would run on Linux from day one."

In 2006, Linux was not powering a majority of the web, but it was powering a majority of the _new_ web properties launched that year.

I think it’s a question of perspective. In 2006 I think it’s fair to say that Linux was becoming dominant on the web, meaning that most greenfield projects would run on Linux from day one.

Enterprise IT was another thing entirely. At the time I was working at an Enterprise Linux vendor and we were very focused on these “Unix to Linux” campaigns. There was so much to do, and a lot of convincing needed to happen to get these business critical workloads over (accounting, payroll, ERPs, etc.).

Ironically, VMware ended up being more instrumental in getting Linux adopted by IT depts everywhere than we ever were. As well as Oracle with Unbreakable Linux, which was released that year.

> The point to watch out for is when the self-driving cars are the primary users, and the needs of human drivers start to fall away as not important any more.

Yeah. I'm really not looking forward to streets being all fenced off to prevent us pesky humans from jaywalking and causing trouble to our robotic overlords.

Would it not be in Intel's best interest to have popular compilers be able to squeeze the most performance out of its own line of CPUs?

I'm wondering how the incentives play out to keep this stuff private?

Asking the HN community: what are the modern options in terms of debugging native programs these days?

It seems that this is an area that hasn't seen much progress over the years.

+1 for Camo.

They recently updated it so that it works in all apps now, including FaceTime.

> Some of the SFC enforcement saw a big move / growth in MIT style licenses (no copyleft elements really) which is a big tragedy as well as a fracturing of licensing (another miss in my book).

indeed. Tragedy is the right word!

> The main issue I had with Mediapart (which led to cancel my subscription) was indeed the fact that on some subjects (mostly the "woke' things), they twist the facts to match their agenda.

> Regarding the other subjects, I had nothing but praise for them.

It’s weird how you noticed they are twisting facts to match their agenda on a specific topic, and somehow still think they’re not doing the same elsewhere.

Mediapart is a very unreliable source.

they are a feature of _liberal_ democracies.

In a liberal democracy, it is understood that the will of the majority is not the only thing that matters. For example, having the majority vote to strip a minority from their religious freedoms is not OK.

Worldine operates the ACS on behalf of the issuer.

I think wlp stands for “Worldline La Poste”.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t surprise me to see this from them…

Have you set up the certicode system from within their banking app though? I believe the UI you’ve seen here is some kind of crappy fallback for when you don’t have Certicode enabled.

I agree 100%.

When looking at using a bike for transportation, you'd typically want racks/mounts, lights, fenders, a bell, internal gears, upright geometry, etc.

If you live in an area with a good transportation network, you'll want it to be foldable so you can leverage multi-modal transport options.

If I remember things correctly about 45,000 bridges across the US are in poor condition and the original Infrastructure Bill targeted 10,000 of them. The Bill got watered down further.

There is simply too much infrastructure to maintain, and more and more stuff is being built every day with no realistic plan for long-term maintenance. It's a losing battle.

> I guess I just like my tech stack to be as open and unrestrictive as possible.

Note that this is another area where you have this user vs. developer trade off.

- GPL or other copyleft licenses will put the user's rights above the developer's.

- MIT or BSD-style licenses will favor the developer rights above the end user's.

"open and unrestrictive as possible" is all relative depending on whether you are a user or a developer.

> The argument that Apple provides more safeguards is a bit flimsy in my opinion.

My point is that this is a market where people value different things. I value the safeguards Apple is putting in. I find they do a better job at it than their competition. But I fully understand that other people do not think so, or that they value other things more.

What I don't particularly like is some of these people turning to the State to force Apple to do things differently.

Developers create things users wants, of course, but they also create things they want. Things like user tracking or data harvesting.

There's an inherent trade off here where adding safeguards to protect users will make the life of developers more difficult. Balancing these two concerns is hard.

I find that Apple mostly strikes the balance right, and so I choose to be their customer. People who disagree have other options available on the market today.

No, that would only allow them to see your name, but you still wouldn't see their names unless they add you.

My understanding is that your profile username is made visible if:

- the person is in your own contact list

- you create a conversation with them

- you accept a conversation from them

see: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007459591

Forced no, but that's the issue with complex regulations, they all interact in subtle ways and no one can fully predict the side effects.

One can argue that public agencies created bad incentives with regulations that mandated ratings agencies' assessments, and then shielded various parties from any accountability by bailing them out, thus removing the main feedback loop of the system (ie: you mess up, you fail).

Strong Town's argument is that some of these suburbs will be successful in encouraging mixed-use development and in doing so will expand their tax bases. But most of the others will fail and decline.

ST are quite explicit that they mostly don't think that retrofitting suburbs should be a focus, because they believe that most of these will go bankrupt anyway, given a sufficient amount of time (because of too much infrastructure liability compared to the tax base), and indeed this is starting to happen all across the US. Hence their focus on areas with a solid core already, that should then be strengthened and encouraged to expand organically from there.

The newspaper-like multicolumn design is quite fun. For some reason, it's very rarely used online.

I'm not sure it's an improvement over the standard 1 column, but it's also refreshing to see people doing these kinds of experiments.

I know La Defense well and I don't think this is the solution. La Defense is not dense from a housing perspective. And it was built with a car-centric mindset. The Esplanade itself is public transport friendly (thank god) but the surrounding area is a shit show. Thankfully most of the recent developments in the area are trying to reverse past decisions, but it's hard.

Also, it's obviously very subjective, but to me La Defense is an ugly concrete jungle and not a nice place to live. Fundamentally, my core issue with la Defense is that it was centrally designed and planned with an Ivory Tower type of thinking.

Today, we recognize the design was deeply flawed. But for some reason, we think we can play the same game again and design a new place from scratch and not make awful mistakes.

I'd much rather see us grow existing cities and areas organically, making them progressively denser, rather than pursuing more of these big money-type projects that don't end up creating places people want to live in.

I think the issue is more subtle than this, and I would also not put European cities in the same bucket as North American ones.

In North American cities, there's a clear low density issue at play. Most of the previously dense urban cores were completely hollowed out to make room for roads, highways or parking lots. One can argue that the current reluctance to the pulling down and rebuild mindset is a direct consequence of the misguided development policies of the post war era. So much damage was done—and continues to be done—that people get very cynical of large scale development/infrastructure projects.

Whereas big European cities like Paris are very dense already. Maybe we could make them even denser, but I think at some point you start getting into negative return territory. I'd personally hate to see a bunch of magnificent 7 floors Parisian buildings getting torn down just to build sky scrapers. (Note: Sky scrapers are cool—but I don't think they are a scalable solution to housing, and by nature tend to require big developer involvement with political connections which then lead to perverse incentives—my personal preference would be to have a lot of smaller developers working on a lot of medium density projects, rather than very tiny number of big developers with very large pockets working on very few projects).

The focus should instead be on bringing areas surrounding the old city limits to the same level of density than the city proper—which is actually starting to happen in Western Europe now that we're starting to roll back some of the car centric policies of the past.

You can think of it as a precursor to LDAP.

It was a way to provide centralized access to User/Groups/Password and hostnames information over the network. YP was a staple of most UNIX deployments for some time, before being replaced by LDAP and DNS.

You'll find some historical context here [1].

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