daveFNbuck

If we don't have the data science to even know what peoples' distant ancestry is, how do you know it matters for choice of diet?

A large part of why it wasn't economical is that no one was being charged for the economic costs of carbon emissions. If combustion didn't have this massive subsidy, it wouldn't have been the more economical choice for so long.

Without dedicated lobbies paying politicians to ignore the problem, Republicans could have promoted conservative solutions like nuclear energy and carbon pricing.

Green energy could have been cost-effective decades earlier, leading to wider adoption and massive investment in research. We could have been building nuclear plants for the last several decades instead of pretending coal was still viable.

If you limit it to languages you know, you're adding 1 or 2 bits of entropy. If you expand it to languages you don't know, you're adding a couple more bits but making it much harder to remember.

If you stick to one language and add a fourth word, you're adding 10+ bits of entropy (depending on the size of the word list you're choosing randomly from).

They have more of an opportunity to prevent carjackings than the drivers do. For example, they could require enough information to create an account that if you stole a car using your account you'd be immediately identified and reported to the police by name.

The downside of this is that it decreases Uber's revenue. If Uber realizes the benefits of low security in their app, but not the costs, they have to incentive to take these or any other precautions. Making Uber responsible for the negative externalities of its service means that they have to take them into account when determining how to maximize profit.

I don't know about legal responsibility, but this happened because the driver was working for Uber. Uber knew who the carjacker was before it happened, and they directed the driver to the carjacking.

This wouldn't have happened without Uber's involvement, and Uber is uniquely situated to be able to prevent this type of carjacking. If they're not responsible for the costs of their safety decisions, they should be.

I thought I'd remember this forever when I first read it years ago too. When I saw the headline on HN today, I couldn't remember what was unnatural about how we depict butterflies.

I think the idea is that the non-compete increases your value to the company, and that your salary is strongly tied to your value to the company. Both of those are pretty questionable.

The function signature was determined by Copilot. The author just wrote the comment above the function and the word function, then let Copilot determine what the signature was and how it would be implemented.

If 10,000 years is too long to ever know what really happened, then we can dismiss the idea that stories from less than 10,000 years ago accurately reflect the reality of more than 40,000 years ago.

Sometimes the device you're logging in with doesn't have the full range of character sets available. This has happened to me with set-top boxes in the past.

Also, do restrict allowed characters when necessary. If one of your apps doesn't allow me to input a particular special character in the password field, don't allow me to have that character in my password.

I think "test-drive" here is supposed to mean do test-driven development.

They're going to write a review for the version that does have a store page, and are being required to download that version first.

If you're already able to do input faster than the computer can process your commands, how would a faster input method increase productivity?

Why is punishing adding value not wrong? Isn't adding value a good thing?

It's not that cats are scared of cucumbers. It's that the cucumber is secretly placed close behind them while they're eating and vulnerable. It's like startling a person by sneaking up on them. That doesn't mean they're scared of you. They're just surprised.

If no one was ever in the driver's seat, how did the car begin moving at all?

A lot of asynchronous job frameworks run workers on many machines across a cluster. That's a very different sort of framework than one that runs things in the background on a single machine, but the short description applies equally well to it.

But then the Japanese for Arbok is "アーボック" according to [1], but reversing the character order doesn't quite result in cobra. Does this have a different hidden meaning, or are people supposed to insert the r sound and reverse it like it's in English?

[1] https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Arbok_(Pok%C3%A9mon)

You still need some sort of verification, even for something as simple as ensuring that images have alt-text. Maybe you missed some images that are dynamically generated in a way you forgot about, or have a typo in the tag.

If screen readers aren't compliant to the standard, then you need to test against as many screen readers as possible to ensure that your site is accessible. Users want a site that works, not a site that complies to an unimplemented standard.

It's hard to know whether you've followed the standard correctly if you can't verify the output.

This is basically the paradox of the heap. Adding one grain of sand doesn't turn a non-heap into a heap of sand, so there's no point at which you've added enough sand for there to be a heap. Yet if you add enough sand, you clearly have a heap at some point. You can always add more sand and make a bigger heap, but that doesn't negate the fact that you have a heap.

The fact that you can't clearly delineate the point where you've learned to code doesn't mean that can't have learned how to code, and the fact that you can get better at coding doesn't mean you haven't learned to code yet.

I never learned to complete the square, and I managed to do well enough later to get a degree in math.

They're still taking extra time to boot up an OS and using electricity to track what you're doing. There have also been stories on HN about smart TVs connecting to open wifi to send data home.

Having containers means you don't have to log in every time, and you can have multiple sessions open in different tabs in the same window.

I wrote a quick test script. You're right that pypy doesn't have this optimization.

The only blame they gave him was that he had a poor choice of words. They're not saying he went against training or policy. They're not saying that he's being disciplined or fired.

Canonical said that they need to review their policies. To me, this implies that what he did was not against policy.

Did canceling stop it? They still have your contact information and they still know you have a satellite radio in your car.

I think an attempt to scapegoat would look more like "in violation of our established policies and rigorous training, a Canonical Sales Representative contacted one of these developers via LinkedIn."

The actual quote acknowledges that the company's training and policies are at fault. I'd also expect a scapegoat to be publicly fired or disciplined, did they say that elsewhere?