joris

Because we don’t need it. The US banking system for example is fairly archaic. Where I live, paper checks went extinct about 30 years ago. Now with SEPA, bank transfers are cheap (cents), fast (seconds) and easy (IBAN). If our banking system would not be as convenient, I’m pretty sure something like PayPal would have been very popular.

That probably depends on where you are. Here in Amsterdam, our triple glazing is made out of all actual glass. In our house it’s made out of four 6-mm sheets of glass actually. So one double sheet that’s a sandwich with a glued layer of foil in between (like a windshield), used as a security component either on the outside (anti break-in) or on the upper floors on the inside as a way to prevent falling through the window.

Awesome! I assume you’ve been using this in another project?

How did you handle/implement undo-redo?

Justin’s cofounder here:

Example video that was completely generated by the bot: https://video.recordonce.com/play/dBZ66RussA8

Yes, in Holland students know they can simply fail an exam and usually know that’s on them.

In the US, students can literally complain to the dean who then puts pressure on the professor. And they do, so professors know to err on the lenient side.

In fact: the average grade at Harvard has been an A- for some years now. So grades from Harvard are basically meaningless.

That’s on their roadmap: https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/stable/frequently-asked-q...

That’s not true. You’re within their scope if you process and/or target EU citizens.

It might of course be difficult to execute the judgment but they can still sue you in the EU. In the US that happens also, for example when some stakeholder sues a foreign website that infringes on their rights. If the sued entity doesn’t show up in court, they just issue a default judgment (meaning the plaintiff wins by default). You can even sue a John Doe in court (at least in the US).

In practice, the EU is also resource constrained like any other government entity, so you probably won’t have much to fear. I mean they’re not going to sue millions of companies all over the world, it just means they have created themselves a new stick that they can choose to use.

I hear that they’ll likely first go after entities that have a big impact on the public (i.e., the most blatant cases).

I use http://subliss.com and it works pretty great for videos. They offer free trials through this link: https://subliss.com/users/sign_up

Paris, Barcelona, Rome (maybe Munich too): You'd have to learn French, Spanish or Italian in order to live a normal life there. In Amsterdam, all the locals speak English, so it's pretty easy to stay here for several years without having to learn Dutch. I have several foreign friends who've been living here in Amsterdam for years without having learnt Dutch. Of course it's always better to know the local language wherever you live, but in Amsterdam you really don't have to.

Copycats! We already had this feature on http://qfly.com/ (on http://qfly.nl to be precise) 10 months ago.

Ok, the logo's definitely quite a deviation from the super-"friendly" previous version. It feels a lot more "corporate" to me. I really liked the friendly feel of the previous logo, but it does tell me something interesting...

The fact that it looks more "corporate"/"professional", may indicate that Canonical is going to pursue corporate deploys more aggressively than before. They're still not making a profit as a company. If we want Ubuntu to continue its prosper for a long time, it's good to keep having Canonical as its backer.

Of course you can argue whether making a logo more "corporate" will help in selling it as a "serious" product, but that's not the point here. If Canonical feels this will help them, it will.

Software patents are terrible.

Note that there are quite some mistakes in the subtitles, many of them changed the meaning. For example "We mogen niet uit nonchalance fouten in een programma aanbrengen. Dat moeten we systematisch en met zorg doen." (12:00) is translated to "We should not introduce errors through sloppiness, but systematically keep them out." whereas it should be "We should not introduce errors through sloppiness, but do this [the introduction of errors] systematically and with care."