handsclean

Glad you have the ability to set your own preferences, but I’m pretty sure most people are happy with this. Do you by chance spend a lot of time reading PDFs while angry?

It’s happened many times before, and people heard about it and aren’t that stupid or forgetful. They just want to believe something incompatible, so they permit themselves a little internal dishonesty: maybe it’s a separate issue that somebody else will surely figure out, or there’s a better solution (that we won’t pursue), or everybody always exaggerates (but we won’t verify that), or they find a way to hate and dismiss everybody who talks about it. Declaring your own shamelessness is more of the same: you’re reframing the problem from the consequences of your actions to your feelings about those consequences, then addressing only your feelings. It’s the same sort of behavior as heroin addicts, who find a route to happiness that doesn’t push them through the good things that the pursuit of happiness was meant to.

The author presents two options: think you’re above politics, or practice it. I admit that, when I was younger, I did believe the first for a while, but what it progressed to was an option C: accept that politics, in some form, is necessary and affects me, then choose to spend as much of my life as possible on other things. If politics is necessary then boy is farming necessary, yet I’m not a farmer. Medicine is necessary, yet I’m not a doctor; defense is necessary, yet I’m not a soldier. These jobs are entrusted to others. We live in a highly specialized society, with which comes the gift of being free to choose beautiful things to feed our limited life energy to, and the curse of being ineffectual in any area we sacrifice little for. Because we’ll be consistently outperformed by those who give more to that area, and less to every other endeavor and principle.

Sometimes, in both workplaces and countries, we enter a state in which we’re forced to feed more of ourselves to the beast. The state’s name is desperation. It’s a tragic state, like reversion to a society in which we spend all our time finding food. People in such a state can’t create science or art.

What are you talking about? You’re referring to Andreas Kling, right? All I’m finding is he used to work at Nokia, then on WebKit at Apple, then founded SerenityOS, and now works on Ladybird full time. He says he was a drug addict, but is now many years clean, surely that’s not what you’re taking issue with?

I suggest group-commits-by-file , group-commits , or group-by-file, depending on whether you want it to make sense out of context and whether you ever group commits differently. You might then feel compelled to add a final line like “… and 12 files with 1 commit each”, or even to enumerate them, which sounds like it’d be useful anyway. “what” isn’t doing any work, there’s already an implicit “what” in the call-response paradigm. “Changed” implies you’re detecting changes, but you’re not, you’re operating on a data structure that happens to represent changes.

> 1+1 sq ft in sq in=

Fun puzzle. Spoilers ahead:

It seems it’s considering the first 1, and not the second, to be in square meters. “(1+1) sq ft in sq in” works.

> If you’re remotely afraid of your government, you can afford a phone released within the last 5 years.

Why in the world would you think that? Who do you think governments target, Bond villains?

The big missing piece for me was that these strategies are meant to be used with React or some other framework. So, in your example, you actually only edit in one place, a SidebarButton component.

I think the problem is people’s priors. This isn’t the first time we’re seeing data fake-arrive like this, and virtually always it’s done either to fake liveness or to lie about rate of change. So, it comes to mean not “live”, but “fake”, even though nefarious motives don’t make much sense in this fun context.

It’s a shame, I think it’s a clever thought, and it doesn’t feel great when good intentions are met with an assumption of maliciousness.

This is just a consequence of life beginning in the ocean. Land-based life is related to ocean-based life at the point of the fork, and there were prior forks which, by definition, remained in the ocean.

Unfortunately, it really does help. Apple is notorious for never fixing bugs unless somebody stirs up drama. Other comments say this specific bug has been there for years.

“You scientists think you’re so smart telling me to stop hitting my head with a frying pan, but look, I’m still conscious! Didn’t see that one coming, did you? You know NOTHING!” Bang bang bang bang…

Naturally, it should also make all full body emoji start dancing, but only when proximate and with a line of sight not obstructed by a U+99385 SOLID WALL. Specific dance moves are implementation dependent, but SHOULD adapt to the user’s locale.

Please don’t conflate limited updates with subscriptions. The problems with subscriptions are that the company can take away your own files, the company can take away your software, the lifetime cost is extremely high, and the company can unilaterally change the deal or stop offering one. None of this applies to limited updates offers like Sublime Text’s. You pay once and keep it forever. The three year limit is on the time into the future for which the company continues to add to what you’re keeping forever. Of course this isn’t unlimited, it’s pay once for the program, not pay once for the lifetime servitude of everybody who works on it.

I wonder if it used to be that people largely weren’t on the same page, and didn’t know it. It’s not like people consult dictionaries to learn what slang means, or even usually ask somebody, and the definitions are related enough that responses usually don’t distinguish them. I’ve noticed it’s not uncommon online that a post’s likes are split between opposing interpretations, like agreeing with its politics vs seeing it as satire of politics one disagrees with.

Can somebody help me understand why these obviously very stupid takes keep popping up on HN? Is it rich people who genuinely have no idea what anything costs? Is it rich people intentionally being cruel to everybody else? Is it people trying to appear rich by pretending they have no idea what anything costs? Is it a bay area thing, are people just blowing through a literal fortune every year and unaware of their spending problems? Is it children whose ideas about money come from “influencers”?

o.O

> Unfortunately this is next to no benefit. You're still paying monthly even if you don't use it. You just get a credit for a future month.

This is not true, you don’t pay if you don’t use it. I think you’re assuming “credit” means some sort of redeemable voucher, but it’s account balance that automatically covers your next bill. Then at the end of the second unused month you get a credit that covers the third month, and so on.

To elaborate a little, an advantage of this is there are many numbers it’s evenly divisible by.

60: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30

100: 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50

360: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180

Kagi automatically credits you for any month you don’t use it [1] [2]. They also charge only the price difference on upgrade [3], though personally I care about this less now that unlimited is $10/mo.

[1]: https://help.kagi.com/kagi/faq/faq.html#fair-pricing

[2]: https://kagi.com/changelog#6155

[3]: https://help.kagi.com/kagi/faq/faq.html#if-i-upgrade-my-plan...

Legitimately curious, could you tell me more about Pyrex? I only heard that they changed the formula years ago to trade some impact resistance for thermal shock resistance, not that there are all-around better options. I haven’t had issues with mine, though I haven’t dropped them, and the only other options I notice in stores are store brand tempered glass that seems to be competing only on price.

No. They’re not hard to detect because they’re good, they’re “hard” to detect because understanding code takes time, and you’re putting that work on the maintainer.

I find it hard to believe that people who don’t intuit this have ever been on the receiving end. If I fill up your email inbox with LLM slop, would you consider that I’ve done you a favor because some of it’s helpful? Or would you care more about the time you’re wasting on the rest, and that it’d take longer to find the good bits than to make them yourself, and just block me?

I don’t think they’re actually that dumb. I think the dirty secret behind “data driven decision making” is managers don’t want data to tell them what to do, they want “data” to make even the idea of disagreeing with them look objectively wrong and stupid.

You’re twisting what people ask for. The real versions are not contradictory.

- Mozilla should develop revenue independent of Google.

- Mozilla should respect Firefox’s users.

- Mozilla should focus mainly on Firefox.

- Mozilla should not kill wildly successful side projects, especially when they complement Firefox.

- Mozilla should be well run.

- Mozilla should not let a few extremely rich executives loot the business.

This is a company that has repeatedly refused actual begging to accept payment for things, then killed those things for lack of funding. They defined themselves as the advocate for users on the web, then started selling user data and lied about it. Sure there’s a grey area, but Mozilla is far from it.

The actual issue seems to be that some tools ask the user to provide a random seed, then accept anything non-empty, even if it’s too short or otherwise obviously not random. The reporter argues this is a critical security vulnerability, Google argues this is just a usability issue. Google subsequently added additional validation to make sure it’s also the right length.

Personally, I think usability issues can have security implications. Taken to the extreme, look at RSA: technically possible to use securely, but widely considered insecure because everybody screws it up. Modern crypto libraries are all about achieving better security by fixing footguns. This issue isn’t RSA, but I bet fully fixing this issue would make a small but tangible number of insecure users secure. I think Google should have a clear and spelled out policy re usability issues with security implications, and should give this guy at least some reward, even if it’s not the “critical vulnerability” he makes it out to be.

“Somebody survived this for about as long as one can survive starvation, and it made the news” is not ringing endorsement you think it is.

Orion is not made by an AI company, it’s made by Kagi.

If you’re an open source or non-profit diehard then yes, it’s not that, but as far as closed source for-profit businesses go, they’re a lot better than most. They are a public benefit corporation that has rejected VC funding, and their main pitch is aligning user and company benefit, despite the mainstream currently railing against it.

I’m not affiliated, just a user.

I’d like to see better fingerprinting tests than coveryourtracks.eff.org and amiunique.org. Both have the flaw that they test only uniqueness, not persistence, with the result that they’d flag a random number generator as a fingerprint, too. Real fingerprinting protection does often involve random, not binned, results, and this results in both websites flunking even the browsers that do pass their tests, like Tor, Safari, and LibreWolf.

Firefox has this built in, about:config privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing. It was contributed upstream by Tor, and off by default in Firefox.

Edit: I think I misunderstood you, you’re looking for something that adds changing noise to the viewport size. Letterboxing isn’t that, but it is another, arguably better, approach to reducing the same fingerprinting vector.