waqf

"@airline1 @airline2 @airline3 Which of you can sell me a seat from XXX to YYY that's large enough for an adult male?"

It's a trap! Roughly speaking, the ones on the right are those. The ones on the left are different and they correspond historically to something like сь, чь, зь (though the pronunciation is rather different from standard Russian pronunciation).

Yes, Polish is the worst. Serbian has ć—č and the voiced equivalent spelled đ—dž, but it doesn't have ś—š and it doesn't have nasals.

*"ogonki"

Could have done what Serbian (and formerly Serbo-Croat) does: freely added letters to the Latin alphabet to match the required set of phonemes, so that there's a one-to-one correspondence between the Latin orthography and the Cyrillic orthography.

(It doesn't solve the problem of missing letters and missing diacritics when trying to write your language using English letters only — but Serbs, Ukrainians etc. can't write their language correctly using only Russian letters either.)

Don't forget panini!

You never could: any "consensus" you see, the media consensus, the Google search consensus, the Facebook consensus, the Youtube consensus, the consensus of people on the street in your hometown, all have their own biases (social, technological and statistical even if you can escape the political) and they always had. The best you can hope for is to be aware of them.

Fairytales and religion wouldn't be so popular if people didn't already have an innate desire to believe in good and bad people.

If an election were flipped in such a way, it would be noticeable because the candidate would lose the popular vote (since the popular vote is a robust statistic and can't be flipped without a large number of hacked machines) but would somehow happen to win by a very narrow margin in a few critical swing states.

(Of course the same is true of any other campaign technique, legitimate or illegitimate, that relies on targeting specific precincts.)

Doesn't pretty much any kind of mail-in option* already have that limitation, and don't most jurisdictions already have some kind of mail-in option?

*(maybe not ones where you actually have to product a documented reason why you can't vote in person)

How fortunate, then, that browsers never have security bugs.

All great art violates some existing genre conventions — if it doesn't, then by definition it's generic art.

Yes, this feature had negative value for me. A common use case is that I'm copying keywords from search result snippets back into the search bar to make a more refined followup search, and Instant Search snatches the result away while I'm trying to copy text from it.

What could replace it is a sufficiently advanced delegative democracy such as LiquidFeedback. The idea is that parties self-organize when sufficiently many votes are delegated to a single person or entity, but they can dissolve and reform at any time.

True. My assumption is that there's a complete lack of the usual consumer protections because (a) no ability to shop around and (b) no political will to fix it because most bills go to insurance companies who (i) are expert at questioning medical bills and (ii) have a negotiated relationship with providers so they don't pay sticker price anyway.

Yes, the pilot made a mistake, but no, the cause of the accident isn't pilot error. From the point of view of preventing similar accidents in future, the cause of the accident is whatever caused the pilot to make the mistake.

To quote from my own comment when we discussed this six months ago (replying to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13325022):

"[…] there's adverse selection. The hospitals that make errors in the client's favor or that don't make errors at all are more likely to go out of business than the ones that make errors in their own favor. So guess which ones are still around when you need a hospital. In other words, just because the errors are accidental, it doesn't mean they happen at random. (This argument applies to any shady business practice that "looks" like an accident, for example dark patterns on websites, or having great customer service for taking your money but terrible customer service for refunding it.)"

Maybe you would be better served by a less confrontational way of making your own point, perhaps something like "I think your otherwise valid point would be made more effectively if it were couched in less emotionally abrasive language, such as 'I think the same approach would be perceived differently in Germany, perhaps coming off as egotistical.'"

With this kind of task, how do you verify that you didn't just overfit and start reproducing the input data?

> It’s really easy to test, just view your site in greyscale.

This is misinformation: some common forms of color-blindness (protan) affect perceived luminance.

Use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Yes, they are constraining. You'll quickly realize that the easiest way to comply is not to rely on color to convey information.

That doesn't necessarily mean it would have been a problem with middle-eastern airlines. They knew that the entire profitability of their US routes depended on well-off business travellers continuing to trust them — and unlike the TSA, they operate in a competitive market.

So now all a terrorist needs to do is carry a thermal printer!

You are right but I don't think the audience here (people trying to learn Galois theory for the first time) will understand your comment either. The original paper didn't even make clear that a_i are the coefficients and x_i are the roots … that's the level at which we need to be clarifying.

What?! What happened when you made an international call, did you have to subtract 1 from all the digits?

> so they have no standing to sue

Is that true? If Zillow doesn't own the copyright, presumably they have some kind of license. Perhaps it has clauses like "we, Zillow, won't allow/abet/facilitate the use of these images on sites other than zillow.com, and/or for purposes other than advertising houses for sale".

Now, when you take these images and use them on another website for another purpose, who has standing to sue, and for what?

To put it another way, when you visit zillow.com, under what license are you downloading their images to render on your device? Surely under an implied contract you have with Zillow. Does the fact that they don't own the copyright prevent them from enforcing any limitations on your usage at all?

In what sense do Bing and DDG not matter in search?

They have less market share, true, because Google has a better product. Your argument seems to be that Google doesn't bother to have a better product (in search), because Google has all the market share, because Google has a better product.

Maybe because they are in a competitive industry and they like having market share?

Doesn't the same argument apply to the existence of business class? Since to a very large extent, what you're paying for in business class is the extra square feet of cabin space.

This; but it disappoints me that the market is so winner-takes-all (skewed towards the top). I wish — for artistic reasons, not socialistic ones — that the money that is making a few companies very profitable were instead making 10x as many companies survivable.

Ten years ago we were promised that personalized recommendations and discoverability of the long tail would make this happen, and we're still waiting.

You still missed one, because there are four canonical math fruit jokes: http://www.stoneswww.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php...