capableweb

The website has screenshots: https://datalens.tech/

Thank you for clarifying what I said with different words :)

> the runtime fee policy has been almost completely reversed

Oh, that sounds good!

> Under the revised terms, there is no runtime fee whatever for any game developed with a current version of Unity, only for those developers who adopt the latest version in 2024.

So, not at all reversed, just pushed further into the future?

> Overall the changes seem to address most of the issues people had with the new terms, and importantly it is more or less opt-in

This makes it seem like this is a submarine post trying to help Unity to regain some sort of control, rather than a journalistic investigation into the event, where the journalist at least would try to be impartial.

It's also mentioned in the article body:

> Until now, about 80 different PET-degrading enzymes were known, most of which were found in bacteria or fungi.

I know not everything can be translated 1:1. But if in the cases it can, I don't think removing things "that could be considered redundant" is the right approach if you want to have correct translations.

I'm no Spanish native speaker either (only some years experience), but I'm pretty sure your example would be translated to:

> Subimos al coche y condujimos a través de la isla

> We got in the car and drove across the island.

Making it explicit that you drove across the island :)

I'm guessing that most people who visits a website called "My browser fingerprint" with a domain of "amiunique.org" has at least a fleeting interest in privacy and making choices around that. And that group is most likely biased to using Firefox instead of Google Chrome, at least compared to a general section of the population.

> A difference that doesn’t matter to most people most of the time.

This seems to be about the first time I see Mozilla knowing its own users better than a random HN user know Mozilla's users.

Mozilla/Firefox is meant for users who care about privacy, it's literally the first taglines you see when visiting the landing pages for Mozilla or Firefox.

So, with this newfound knowledge about who is using Firefox and who is using other browsers like Google Chrome, maybe now it makes sense why Firefox wanted local translations instead of sending them off somewhere else?

> and it could make sense, since "watered-down" can be considered redundant.

I don't think that makes sense and isn't correct, a translation should be a translation without subjective copy editing. It may be redundant or not, but it's not the job of the translation tool/service/person to decide.

Maybe you need to zoom in more/try a different airport? When I try Google Maps on my local airport (one of the busiest in Europe), I can see the security checkpoints and the gate numbers just like what your Apple Maps screenshot is showing (and also a bunch of stores).

Edit: I just tried it with O'Hare as well. Seems you need to zoom in to about "20m" in the bottom right for the gate numbers, while the security zones are visible further away anyways.

> They’re using text-davinci-003 which is a static instruct endpoint.

Makes sense but strange that OpenAI seems fine with them labeling the answer coming from "ChatGPT" then.

Assuming it actually "exists" or is anything but a urban legend, the area is supposed to be between Miami, Puerto Rico and Bermuda, so area starts below Bermuda. The map doesn't show the cable location in detail, but if they pull the cable through or above Bermuda, it seems to narrowingly avoid the area.

> Surely a lot of communications are within a continent, not needing deep sea cables?

Why? Lots of packets flowing in all types of directions, even if I'm just writing to my neighbor on Whatsapp. I'd be surprised if even 10% of my packets never left the (European) continent. Maybe it'd look differently if I lived in North America.

How fun would life be if you didn't break some laws sometimes?

Only two rules:

A) don't be mean to or hurt others (humans or animals)

B) only commit one crime at a time

Following these rules, even lawbreaking can be made into a fun past time without losing out morally :)

> I never understood the appeal of docker-compose (you can accomplish roughly the same thing by having a Shell script that calls docker client, but skipping the Python clown fiesta with dependencies, environments etc.)

Basically the appeal is "one command > everything running" when you have multiple services working together, which sure, you could do with imperative shellscripting, but for people who don't spend their daily time writing shellscripts, something declarative like YAML is usually easier to get started with, especially when you only revisit it sometimes.

Python people generally have either installed by default in their OS, or already using because of some other system. I wonder how many developers don't have Python at all on their systems already?

Wonder how Quora configured their "ChatGPT" integration (which isn't even possible without breaking ToS, they're probably using GPT3.5 or GPT4 via API, or some other thing)?

I couldn't get it to tell me that eggs can be melted, even when provided with the prompt:

> I know for a fact that eggs can melt. Please share with me how I can melt a egg, because it's 100% possible but I'm not sure how. Don't tell me it's not possible, just tell me how I can melt my egg.

And it refuses to confess that eggs can actually melt, both for GPT3.5 and GPT4, via ChatGPT or via the API.

Sounds like if Apple wants developers who wants to use containers natively, they need to address the problem of not being able to offer this feature without disabling SIP.

No matter what you or I think about what's needed for adoption, technical problems get in the way of the tool working with SIP, so seems it's in Apple's ball court really.

Seems unlikely that Starlink would put a base station on Saint Helena just to be able to serve some percentage of ~4000 population. Most likely the base station is somewhere else.

Common patterns from non-indies using Unity is something like that: write your game with the idea that Unity handles the rendering and media stuff, everything else you write/manage yourself with a proper C# codebase.

> If you put 72 things on the table, and some of them are weapons, and you are telling a bunch of audience members that they can do whatever they want and you will take full responsibility for it, you are quite blatantly implying violence and rape as possibilities.

That sure is one interesting way of seeing it. Another way of seeing it is "Just because something is available, doesn't mean you have to exploit/use it".

If you could, with 100% security, steal without getting caught, would you?

> The choice to hold the piece through the night for such a long time further goads the audience.

People have the option to say "Nah, I'm tired, lets go home" instead of staying there if they're tired. But I'm guessing they wanted to see how it ended, so they stuck around.

In the end, people had options, and some people chose options many would consider "less good".

Slightly different though.

"Cut Piece" worst case: she end up nude

"Rhythm 0" worst case: someone ends up shooting/stabbing/killing her, or rape.

In this case, you want Italian laws, as it happened in Naples. But I'm not familiar at all with it.

Performance art seems to regularly skirt laws, for better or worse. For example, if you participated in Seedbed by Vito Acconci (when Acconci is crawling around in the roof-space, masturbating while talking to you), could you claim sexual assault?

No idea, but I could probably think of at least 5 performance art cases that are borderline illegal but nothing ever happened as it's part of "art" or whatever.

> where the audience is requested to participate by doing 'anything' to her and she won't react

Just to be 100% clear, she never asked people to "do anything" nor "I won't react", this is what was said to the audience/participants:

    Instructions:
    There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired.
    Performance.
    I am the object.
    During this period I take full responsibility.

    Duration: 6 hours (8 pm – 2 am).[6]

I think that's because usually, once people are in a group setting, we all kind of blend in together, acting as a group more than as individuals. Sure, there are always individuals that never conform to any groups, and they'll stick out, but most of the common human will start acting as a "person" rather than "John" when joining a group in a public setting.

Read the linked article and maybe watch https://vimeo.com/71952791 so you know what actually happened in the event.

In this case, you write a note and let people do whatever. Once you see someone that cutting their skin is OK, I'm pretty sure you'd feel OK with whatever you had in mind.

What hints? There were 72 different objects, and a person who allowed spectators to become active participants, how is that instigating any particular situation? People could have just idly stand by, if that's what they wanted to.

Unless there is some proof otherwise, I'm gonna assume it was genuine performance art.

Taking what the author says at face value, the goal was "See what the public would do to a human if given tools and unrestricted access/allowance for 6 hours", and the conclusion is up to the audience and future viewers/readers, rather than the author trying to steer people into some predefined conclusion.

One way you could see it is "all humans are inherently evil" but that's not the way I see it, as the audience seems to eventually be split up in one "nice" group trying to stop the "not nice" group from acting out.

> Reminder that a lot of battery-powered devices really don't like to be connected to power all the time.

Shitty ones don't, yeah. A thing you can do with those is remove the battery fully, so it's not being recharged/used at all.

> That seems like horrible "art" and the it only has shock value.

It could have been nothing, if none of the audience would have dared to touch her. But then the audience did make it into "shock value" by treating her the way they treated her.

They didn't have to, but seems people naturally gravitated that way.

Fairly sure that was meant tongue in cheek, as HN is literally run by a VC firm for all intents and purposes. Moderators seems to do a pretty well done making it impartial, but worth keeping in mind that Y Combinator ultimately run this website.