conquistadog

I find it refreshing when someone steps downward for perspective (if perhaps also necessity), having done so myself in the past.

Turnstile fails spectacularly for me using the materialistic app to read HN articles. Not sure yet why.

There is only one "now", is there not? All else is perception of speed.

I was shocked when the local auto zone or equivalent looked up my car by plate and knew stuff I'd have objected to.

Similar experience. I bought a Kia last month. The salesman was insistent that his "delivery checklist" needed to be complete or he'd be in trouble with his manager. It included sitting with me in the car to make sure the app got installed on my phone. Thankfully, my trusty Moto is too old and the Play Store said it was incompatible with the app (I'd be curious to know exactly why, but haven't pursued it). The salesman looked quite dejected.

To me the reasons for this pressure seemed quite obvious: to ensure that I was fully enrolled in the data collection.

> there is still room for my ilk in the tech world.

There is. I'm trying to hire more of it as we speak.

I've spent many years becoming quite fluent in bash. It's not trivial. But all objections here are surmountable if not outright features. Python is the right tool for many jobs. But so is bash, for someone willing to truly learn it.

Org is just a shorthand as far as I know. Emacs Org-Mode works with files typically ending in ".org". I prefer to avoid the confusion by saying "Org-Mode" and "Org-Mode files" fully (and, I believe, properly).

A fix is indeed a change, even if minor.

To be fair, my own distaste for clickbait is palpable here. But I think I can suspend it in light of the importance of this article's bigger point.

I've always thought this sounded like a good idea, and to see it actually happening is pretty amazing. Here's hoping it catches on.

I find that GV is also excellent at inbound robocall and spam rejection, FWIW.

Even an incomplete blacklist might be helpful, just in the interest of keeping perfect from being the enemy of good.

Ring customer here. I recently shared a video of crime on my property using the neighborhoods feature. I also downloaded the video to my phone, in order to email a copy of it to cops who asked for it (and apparently don't participate in the portal described here). The offender was subsequently caught thanks to the video, and the cops recovered my property for me.

The opt-in is limited to per video shared, as far as I've been led to believe and in my experience. I'd be quite alarmed to learn anyone could access anything I haven't designated without that specific sharing step on my part.

By obscuring the real destination, it's also terrible for security.

Is there a way to exclude results that don't actually contain all of the search terms? For example, results for +chicken +neutrino should not include this [1] because the word chicken isn't there. Quotes and plus signs both fail this everywhere I know of in 2018.

[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/once-again-physicist...

I suspect this will continue until any such service can be successfully marketed on the actual merit of the actual service provided, without the hype (or even the mention) that it's an AI-based service.

In this case at least, we can thank the media for the acquittal -- if you count the magazine among the media.

It's a little less dramatic than it might have been, since his artwork as the catalyst had nothing particularly to do with the case. But certainly the magazine's participation here was constructive to the right outcome.

The local news station, on the other hand, was perhaps a bit less helpful.

For self-hosters like me, I like and recommend Gitea [1] (based on gog). Same workflow as GitHub, but in your own hands. You can open it up to the masses or keep it close to the vest, your call. A Docker version is available, but its Go-ness makes it super easy (and even lighter) to deploy on its own anyway.

[1] https://gitea.io/en-us/

People seem to have much greater fear of spectacular and bizarre deaths than of considerably more likely but relatively mundane deaths.

Right. Given their size, I'm not sure how painful this amount would be to the offender. Too low, and it's just a cost of doing business. A percentage penalty (of nationwide if not worldwide revenue) might prove much more concerning to them, much as we're seeing with general alarm caused by the fear of the GDPR's percentage penalty.

Robert Reich has become a very compelling and rational voice on these issues, making the problems and their causes much easier to understand. I strongly recommend his documentary at http://inequalityforall.com as well numerous other easily found pieces he's put out.

No offense intended. By now your actual main point has been addressed, so I'll simply apologize for mistaking what your point was really about.

The randomness of the website is irrelevant to the requirement, at least as I understand it.

Let's consider the social contracts that intellectual property protections exist to fulfill in the first place.

For trademarks, for me at least, that seems to center on preventing various harms resulting from consumer confusion, deliberate or otherwise. Indeed, merely "protecting established revenue streams" is explicitly not a reason I'd endorse.

In that context, I'm not sure the consumer is meaningfully confused or harmed by any possible (otherwise legal) use of the trapezoidal four-finger shape by a non-KitKat product. So I'd be inclined to say "no" to trademark protection for it.

Contrary opinions invited, particularly consumer harms I might be overlooking.

"Worse, the destination would say '250 OK' to every e-mail I sent them so I had no way of knowing that the messages had been sent to the big bitbucket in the sky. I got annoyed"

This. I go to a lot of trouble to follow all relevant RFCs, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and TLS. My intent is to help other servers know I'm transmitting in good faith, I'm hopes I'll get the same fair shake.

If it's still not good enough for you, please at least let me know that fact, with a message I can investigate. At the very least, don't outright lie, which is what I take a bogus 250 to be doing.

Scrappy founder here. Telegram crushes it for low latency, instantly synched desktop/mobile flexibility, easy topic channels and groups, and trivial bot API. I've not seen anything do what it does as perfomantly.

For code, wiki, and issues, it's self hosted Gitea. It's a dream to fire up thanks to Go and SQLite, and users forget you're not at GitHub.

Nothing more than those two plus email needed here, yet anyway.

You make a fair point, but that advice is a very hard ask for some. Just looking for some reassurance.

Very interested. How much about one's idea must be disclosed? Is there any protection for secret sauce?

How does the existence of a catch-all, of any kind, make it not a "valid business domain?"

What technical means do you use to detect a catch-all address? I know of no reliable method for that purpose, since receiving server cooperation would be required and could not be trusted.

What constitutes a "valid business email", exactly? I entered one, clicked "verify", and was warned to "enter a valid business email." I assure you, I did. What's the trouble?