2,501 karma · joined March 17, 2012
Twitter: https://twitter.com/basicallydan GitHub: https://github.com/basicallydan
Great game! I got a 95 point landing after a good few goes then I saw all the fun people were having with the crashes so I joined in. Great job!
I disagree
Was anybody else also hoping for a Victorian HN Front Page with list of parody HN links which one might've expected to see in the 1880s or something?
- New Developments Greatly Increase Steam Engine Efficiency
- Show VHN: I have developed plans for a machine that will travel through time
- Nikola Tesla on Direct Current
- Ask VHN: Is the Trans-Atlantic telegraph cable down?
Any other ideas?
EDIT: perhaps the GitHub’s main README could include links to various implementations too!
Publishers, line up
So fat in fact that it opens the ad no matter what I do, only to be told that eToro is not even available in my country.
So not only do I see a massive ad that makes the article hard to read, I can’t even close it, and it’s for a product I can’t buy.
I hate this, and everybody involved in implementing it should be ashamed of themselves.
I agree, it needs to be much more cost-effective. Someone In The Know told me that there's some attempts being made to make it more cost-effective with something called Optimism (https://twitter.com/optimismPBC) - but after looking into it, it does seem like you'd need to buy tokens. I specifically wanted this Game of Life to be driven by ETH!
You don't need to share of course but I am curious - is your contract a more "legitimate" use than mine? Something which is a genuine utility?
Thanks for reading btw!
Currently I'm doing a version of Conway's Game of Life in Solidity for the Ethereum network. Spoiler: it's not going to be affordable to actually use it on the network!
EDIT: Hang on a second, Tom Forbes! Fancy bumping into you here yet again. It's Dan from Marvel!
I think one of the most useful parts of this list of suggestions is to write or improve tests. You did allude to this, but I think it’s the most useful part (if test coverage starts out poor) because by doing so, especially before doing any other changes, you’re making it easier to do some of the other suggestions with confidence.
Good read!
I always assumed there was some rigorous usability test they’re required to undergo.
EDIT: Also, that's not always the case. The author of the piece herself is Verified and she clearly runs her own account: https://twitter.com/WaterSlicer
From Wikipedia:
> The "Dark Ages" is a historical periodization traditionally referring to the Middle Ages (c. 5th–15th century) that asserts that a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.
If you're trying to keep with how "Dark Age" I don't think the periods you're referring to are at all "Dark". The cultural output of the web back then was _massive_, novel, and growing. It's even more massive now, and growing at a faster rate than before. Whether that output is quite as novel now is up for debate, but what I'm saying is that if there is such a thing as a "Web Dark Age", we haven't seen it yet.
Back then, it was the early days and things were still being worked out. It wasn't a deterioration, since there was nothing to deteriorate.
Nonetheless, I like the website and it's a nice snapshot of some design trends of the time.
Spell checkers like Word’s are responsible for the “z” in British English being demonised. Once upon a time, according to linguist Gretchen McCullen, it was common in British English to use both z and s. But somewhere along the line, automated spell checkers categorised one spelling as British and categorized the other as American, and it created a whole new hobby for many British people who fancied themselves the guardians of the English language, courageously pointing out whenever someone used the filthy, “dumbed down” version from across the Atlantic. We have these brave volunteers to thank for defending the purity of the famously consistent English language, and for these people we have spell checkers to thank.
Thanks a lot, spell checkers!