rprwhite

The thing I always remind myself of, when I think “isn’t this obvious?”, is a conversation I had with my mum about 15 years ago. She gives me a call, and after the usual chitchat…

  Mum: “they had some computer training courses at work, the other day. We learnt great thing, dragon drop”
  Me: “that’s great, I didn’t realise you didn’t know about drag’n’drop”
  Mum: “yeah, we were talking about why it’s called dragon drop, and I thought you’d know”
  Me: “mum, are you saying ‘dragon’, as in the mythical creature?”
  Mum: “yeah, why is it called that, we’re all stumped”
  Me: “it’s not the creature, it’s the shortened version of drag… and… drop - drag’n’drop”
  Mum: “wow, that makes so much more sense. I can’t wait to tell everyone at work”

Now mum definitely isn’t a power user, but by the time of this conversation she had been using computers daily for 20 odd years, since the late 80’s.

I try to remind myself of this fun little anecdote as much as I can.

My primary issue with the TouchBar, losing the F keys was a concern but lot my primary one, was that it required me to look at it to use it. With keys you can feel them, and learn their place. But, the TouchBar had me looking at it and not the screen to do something. If it was angled so I could see it in my periphery whilst looking at the screen it would been awesome.

This seems like it’s conflating problems. It’s actually two different problems:

1. Is the PR suitable, and therefore should be approved, and

2. Is this person suitable to make that decision.

If 2 is false then the person should remove themselves from the list of reviewers. Then 1 can follow its normal process.

Yeah, I was also under the impression helium was in very short supply. The article doesn’t mention that, at all. But it does say the unit is quiet because it operates at a constant frequency, so they can use noise cancellation very effectively.

The link with the typo is in the footer.

Err... yeah, because that's what USA based companies are known for - PII protection and data privacy?!?

Maybe there is some more complexity to this argument, that I'm missing. But, it's not one that has merit without justification.

It’s tonyhart7’s lucky day https://xkcd.com/1053/

I mean, this is just this https://xkcd.com/927/ actually happening.

Clearly, the answer is more standards!

I had the exact same thoughts. But, also, why is it a good thing that risk is passed down to the users of the currency?

In the regular system risk is passed upward to regular bank you deal with, then upward to the government bank. The frustrating part here is that the regular bank makes all, or very nearly all, the profit, yet passes on the risk. This gives them enormous amounts of power, through wealth, which is far from ideal. But, much, much worse is the concept of removing the regular bank, and government bank, replacing them with a random person online. And passing the risk downward to the users of the currency.

There's two images where the face is transferred to the final image. The references images with blurred faces are all being used for a different reference; the pose, or "necklace", etc. The faces are blurred in every image unless they explicitly want the face transferred to the final image, at least that's how it seems.

There is a similar option in iOS, where you give an app access to select items only.

As a less confrontational reply: from my point of view “unwanted fly tipping” is talking about rubbish. The concept of depositing unwanted, yet usable, not rubbish, things somewhere is not something that would happen (outside of the rather recent disposable culture context). As to your sentence (which is perfectly fine), the use of words avoids possibly confusing repetition. Atypical use would be preferred to “no fly tipping, take it to the tip”.

Challenge accepted - “scon” is the only way! Why? Absolutely no logical reason, but it is, how it is.

The sound of the word just seems to capture the action, or lack of action, so well.

I don’t think Aus/NZ would use it in this manner. It would be more likely to see “no dumping”.

Dump and tip have different connotations. The tip is where one deposits refuse/rubbish. Whilst a dump and is a pile/collection of unwanted things, not necessarily rubbish. It’s a small but often important distinction.

That URL is 404 for me. It needs the "l" in .html added to the end to work.

My client, the sky, is suing your client for copyright infringement.

Additionally my client is suing GGP’s client for the offer of water, in which my client believes they have a valid interest but were not given due consideration in the making of this offer.

I think this might be right up your alley, along with some of the children comments: https://rive.app

It’s pretty much modern Macromedia Flash. Except a JS runtime, rather than plugin.

The ascorbic acid in lemon juice is doing the work here. If you’d like read up on the science as to why it works the terms you need are polyphenol oxidase, which are the enzymes primarily responsible for browning in fruit and veg. Then also look into the Fenton chain reaction and how’s it’s interfered by ascorbic acid binding to quinones. It’ll probably be easier to find this if you focus on wine science, more so than fruit and veg in general.

This sentiment has been repeated in a few comments. But, why can’t the deno deploy implementation be reimplemented, by yourself, by running a foundationDB server with mvSQLite[1]? That shouldn’t require any changes to the code.

[1] https://github.com/losfair/mvsqlite

This is a great anecdote for the need of intent. But, you also need context. Without either of those it’s very, very hard to agree on rules. And agreeing on either context or intent, let alone both, in a small community is hard. Doing so across the internet is damn near impossible and that was the point of the article.

But… all of the things you mention, like much in life, are susceptible to misinterpretation.

Do you know, or does it just appear that way to the best of your knowledge. The black/blue, or white/gold, dress is a good example of seeing something doesn’t make it true, or false.

The much bigger, much more critical, secret is knowing someone did something because you, or more likely someone under your direct command, was involved in the action. In which case the secret is the culpability more than the action itself.

I think Murdoch is an excellent example to compare against Musk, right now. Not because he’s an exemplar of the non-interventionist, but because he’s all business. He will buy businesses, that are profitable, that present ideas against his current, perceived, goals. This is hedging his bets, somewhat. Musk, on the other hand, buys business, regardless of profitability, that suit his personal goals. Then make managing decisions based on whim. The difference isn’t that Murdoch lets others do the talking and Musk does his own, for better or worse. It’s that Murdoch makes business decisions and Musk makes emotional decisions.

To be clear - I’m not trying to suggest one is better than the other. Just that they are a very interesting comparison.

I found it the exact opposite - I very nearly never touched it. My problem with it was you need to look at it to interact with it, which meant you weren’t looking at the screen. It felt like someone designed it and said “but that won’t be a problem, because you can have the bar show you what you need” without considering it’s impossible to see what’s under your finger. If they’d somehow put it at the same angle as the screen, so you could interact with it and while focusing on the screen, it could’ve been amazing - for me at least.

This seems bizarre to me. Under what context would would it be legitimate for any of those things to occur? A pay raise maybe. But, why would someone (crucial part, here, being someone you don’t know) be negotiating it for you?

That's true, but if this didn't make news then what would've happened in the future? Thousands, millions maybe, of documents talking about areas and no mention of markets make discover more difficult for a future anti-trust case.

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. A choice can be made to remove something, seen to be, having a negative impact on people without having to remove everything that is seen to have such an impact. One step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.

I feel these are preferences, that you don’t like - which is perfectly valid. Except “Save As…”, it’s not intuitive. The wording implies renaming the existing file. The actual action is more accurately worded “Save a copy as…”, or more succinctly “Duplicate”.

Argon is better at reducing oxygen ingress in the short term, less than 2 weeks. But only strictly as a measure of dO2, sensorily a panel of experts were unable to determine the difference. So I would choose whichever is cheaper.