boffinism

> Is there any reason to believe so?

Yes, specificially this article: http://haggardhawksblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/ampersand.html

Re "I doubt anybody has ever said I per se I" (in the context of alphabet recitation) may I draw your attention to this article[0]:

> Up until as recently as the mid 1900s, it was standard practice when reciting the alphabet to use the Latin phrase per se (literally “by itself”) to differentiate between individual letters of the alphabet—like A, I, and O—and single-character homographic words—like a, I and O.

> So the letter A would be read as “A per se A”, to ensure it was distinguished from the indefinite article a. The letter I, similarly, would be “I per se I” to differentiate it from the pronoun I. And the letter O would be “O per se O” to differentiate it from the interjection O!

[0] http://haggardhawksblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/ampersand.html

You're missing that "& per se &" would still have been called that even if it wasn't the last item in the list. If the order was "...y, & and z" you'd pronounce it "why and per se and and zed".

No it isn't. The first "and" in "and per se and" isn't a conjunction. So you could actually say:

I per se I, O per se O, and and per se and.

Don't confuse cookie laws with data laws

These two statements are not incompatible.

Taking the question at face value, the answer is: massive amounts of capital. And barriers to entry like that make the 'the free market will solve this' argument less convincing.

Do you think other cultures, who care less about work, care less about food and shelter? Or would you care to elaborate on why work is more necessary for food and shelter in America than in other cultures (bearing in mind that America is one of the more developed nations on earth)?

"Aquanauts". "Water sailors". Since the water is implied by the sailor bit (astronauts and aeronauts being effectively "sailors but in space"/"sailors but on the air"), couldn't we just say.... "Nauts"? Or, to stick more closely to the Greek, "Nautes"?

> Twofer Goofer HQ's adherence to strict "perfect" rhyme can be tricky for those slant rhyme-inclined.

And yet one puzzle they hammer Bard for failing is "Cactus Practice". What accent do you have to have for that to be a perfect rhyme?

(These rules apply to American English, not British English. I can't speak for other languages and variants.)

there's nothing "bad" about phrases like "impressively easy" or "significantly larger". OP just has a weird phobia of utterly reasonable adverbs.

Oh cool, so adverbs are banned now, are they?

Being blunt, it sounds to me like you're using wildly inaccurate personality stereotypes to generalise horribly about both software engineers and artists. A software dev who is inclined to believe they have all the answers is a bad software dev. And the idea that artists all need to be intuitive, and flexible is, based on my experience of many artists, laughable.

Try finding a broader range of developers and artists to spend time around. Your world view may expand.

No because:

> for the optical illusion to work, you must place the virtual camera at the position of one of your eyes and close the other one.

Thanks! I'm never sure how the title guidelines (that prohibit editorializing) apply to tweets where there is no title.

If you spent 20 mins looking, it's not their recommendation system that's failing. It's that you don't like their content (or how their content is portrayed).

The recommendation system is the thing that shows you stuff without you needing to browse for 20 mins.

I love the idea that social media accounts, like wine, are more valuable if they're sufficiently aged.

I tried aabbccdd... to make a spiral and it broke at m.

It has been described as 'mansplaining as a service'

<>>

I feel like what's missing from the analogy is that planes aren't called Artificial Birds (AB). If they were, the article wouldn't be such a strawman.

"Arial should be a firing offence"

Grant me the comfortable self-righteousness of people who don't realise their personal aesthetic preferences are not objective statements of fact.

How do you feel about the rebuttal to this claim in the article? Particularly the decline in licence plate splats?

I mean, it's quite news worthy. The Washington Post dedicated large parts of an article on insect population decline to exploring it.

Take a look at https://supperware.co.uk/ - head tracking specifically to enable 3D audio.

> The situation is bad enough that the Snap employee said they’d considered quitting since then.

So, only bad enough that an employee might consider quitting? That... really suggests it's not a particularly bad situation.

It's HN, don't.

This whole article feels like it was written by someone who never really stopped to understand what deadlines are or why they exist. The author was only concerned with how they impact them, and desperate to push back.

For one thing: "In a system that awards bonuses to those who reach a $50,000 deadline..."

Not a deadline.

"[Plain-text email] is strongly preferred"

I think it's significant that this is written in the passive voice. Because written this way it has the semblance of officialness, of generalness. Whereas writing it in the active voice would reveal that the people doing the preferring are just the people who made this website, and this preference is just that: a preference.

I love HTML emails, because I use italics basically all the time in my writing, and underscores _just don't offer the same experience_.