markild

Gave me a flashback to VR.5[1] from '95.

I remember it as an _amazing_ show, so I'm very weary of seeing any videos of it now...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR.5

To each their own.

I _love_ the tradeoffs between size, weight, battery life and performance in my Macbook 14" laptop.

> One thing that I found out in my exit interview at Capital One is that the mistake I made while posting this was to call something a "counter offer" from Capital One. It was noted that this wasn't a counter offer, it was a "your salary is being updated anyway for competitiveness", but I'd misinterpreted the exact wording, as it sounded like a counter at the time.

Sounds like a counter offer to me. I'd be very surprised if this "update for competitiveness" would have happened had it not been for a different offer.

Though I do agree with your sentiment here, this saying comes to mind:

"Nobody ever gets fired for buying IBM".

I think the idea is that by trying to actively look for changes, you shift your focus around, but don't actually remember that well what is placed where.

At least for me, my focus kept wondering around the room, never noticing that things that was previously there was replaced by something else.

That sounds like semantics.

They are not saying "prohibit free access" here.

It'll probably look pretty unsettling[1]

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/4/10/17218758/l...

> we are simply a very scaled version of that

I might be extrapolating too far here, but if that is the case, couldn't we argue that this is also the case further up the scale?

Is the earth, with all its mountains, weather systems and inhabitants, conscious?

Is the solar system? The galaxy? The universe?

What does consciousness even _mean_ at that scale?

It does strike me as "arbitrary" that consciousness should only exist at our scale. Maybe our version of consciousness does, but is there some other type of consciousness at different scales?

I believe it's meant to be read as sarcasm.

> Also interesting that public lists for media is no longer distributed. How have media outlets taken this?

Media is free to write about, and have searchable lists, for parts of the info. Typically something that is of "public interest", e.g the highest earners.

The rules behind this I believe is a bit vague. I read up on the legal text for this now, and it basically states that they can get access to the lists as long as they sign an agreement where they, among other things, need to promise not to publish the full list.

Regardless of controversy, how is this relevant to the matter at hand?

Interesting that they say nothing about consumption. I would expect them to be less fuel efficient, but having some number to go by would be nice.

As mentioned above, but which I think is a point worth being made several times, because I really think they've done a lot correctly here:

You can use your own domain.

They actually seem to have thought about this.

> New Masked Email addresses will be created @fastmail.com. You can change this in Settings → Domains

I agree with you, and I'm looking forward to be trying this out.

I don't have any skin in this game, but I think it's very sad to see that the conclusion being drawn from this discussion is that it's unprovoked hostility. I see disagreements and different values.

I hope both parties in this discussion can disconnect the message from the person.

Having discussions with people we disagree with about topics we see differently is in my honest opinion the way we get out of the "us vs them" tendency to think.

Just be more specific, like "java bean"... oh.

Joking aside, I dislike stuff that reuses overly generic concepts and names. I get why it was chosen, it's sorta cute, and it fits the theme, but it would be very nice if it was a uniquely named concept.

Agreed. If not, you could just as well have said "If a colleague can do your job, you're not needed."

It's actually an interesting point that. Oversimplified a bit, I feel there are two different ways that people measure their worth in the workplace. There is "no one else can do what I do" and then there's "I make sure that everything I do can be done by someone else".

Personally I much prefer the latter.

Also Zigbee and Z-Wave.

Great, so their conclusion is "we should make this less obvious and creepy", not "we should probably stop doing this".

You will very much see the difference between high quality and low quality optics/sensors, even at fairly low resolution.

Not to my knowledge, but they do at least list[0] what kind of access method they use for the different integrations.

I would too very much like to see a filter on local only access. At least it's doable to check before buying something.

[0]: https://www.home-assistant.io/blog/2016/02/12/classifying-th...

Urine isn't sterile, though[1], and there's good reason to believe that the toilet seat is one of the least concerns when it comes to sources for bacteria[2].

I can buy the argument for "I prefer not to sit", but I'm not convinced about the hygienic aspects.

[1]: https://www.popsci.com/urine-sterile-drinking-pee/ [2]: https://time.com/4908654/cell-phone-bacteria/

I guess your username has the same properties.

They're chosen because of some visual elements, and are hard, if not impossible to pronounce for text-to-speech.

There are legal and illegal ways to disclose illegal activity. The fact that the activity was illegal, doesn't automatically make any disclosure of it legal.

Not arguing one way or the other here, as I simply don't know enough about the situation.

I guess that's where vscode's remote ssh extension comes into play.

There's things to be said about it being closed source, but it _definitely_ also removes, IMO, the pain points of remote editing.

Off topic, but first time I've seen "quackable". Hahaha, I like it! I've tried "duck it" earlier, but it just sounds like I'm stuck with auto correct on.

Thanks for this.

To me, this reads very much as something written by Kurt Vonnegut. Not exactly reassuring and not exactly depressing.

Finally!

With such great dev tools for most other things, I've been looking forward to not have to use Chrome for websocket work.

Also, it seems we already see why competition is great, lots of cool features on the inspection.

Cool project.

I'm a bit reluctant to trust the quality of this, however.

The first example I looked up was "Format date YYYY-MM-DD" in Python, which wanted me to use "isoformat()", which produces something else.

It was easy to correct, but I'd like to see a more "democratic" approach to getting correct examples, not just taking the latest one as fact.

edit: Sorry, more precise critique of the usage of "isoformat" would be "which _might_ produce something else" (it depends on the resolution of info in the date object).

Not if you're moving in a different direction. The opposite one, for instance.