7,824 karma · joined January 2, 2013
Guy being interviewed by a reporter about a secret project. A secret project that is trying to resurrect an antique plane that has been subject to weather and on display as a museum piece for many years.
It sounds like a clown-show staged around a cool looking plane that's older than 90+% of HN readers.
It's also known as the most common phone number on the web[0], because of programmers trying to store phone numbers as 32 bit integers, and hitting overflow.
Of an infected gallbladder?
Don't worry - the pain is so incredibly intense, there is zero chance you'll not be aware of it, regardless of how high you think your pain tolerance is.
My god what an ancient trope.
Presumably you realize most current Microsoft employees were not even alive when the EEE memo was written.
Must we also talk about some decision Henry Ford made in 1906 every time the automaker is mentioned, or something the Gauls did in 200 BC every time England is mentioned?
Everyone can apply their own form of Occam's Razor. Some will conclude conspiracy, others, missed second and third order terms.
You presume wrong. No college professor will waste the amount of time required to fully write out everything they will say in class in advance. Notes, yes. Detailed notes, not unlikely. Full script to be read verbatim, nope.
Paint.net is the only thing I miss from my days on Windows machines, so super excited about this!
githubstatus.com is currently green.
Not quite
Legal cases are adjudicated by human judges who have been dealing with scenarios like this for thousands of years, since long before the invention of software and laptops, and who are not the least bit challenged when presented with strawman scenarios like the one you called out.
The google search required to find the answer ("federal statute for destruction of evidence") is shorter than your question here.
"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry..."[0]
So thank you, for pulling together exactly the kind of details I've looked for but hadn't been able to find.
Powerful, but the densest collection of UI anti-patterns known to man.
Their "designers" obviously walked up hill both ways in the snow to school every day while being eaten by a walrus and feel anyone who doesn't enjoy a suitably opaque navigation scheme isn't worth acknowledging.
It shows you what is new that you haven't seen, then lets you move on so you're not digging through the same stories repeatedly. No account or registration required. Syncs across all your machines if you want to (just use the randomly generate heroku-style link). Defaults to showing you a few sites, which you can edit with a few clicks in the menu. Easy, lightweight, totally changed my life when I found it.
This. My understanding is that SOC2 does require approvals (eg 2nd person reviews/approves the code change). This approach doesn't seem to include that step. Is that not a requirement?
For anyone interested in this space, see for example [0].
[0]https://adlibrary.com/posts/google-ads-transparency-center-a...
Which is it? Am I switching the toggle to opt out of selling my personal information or am I switching it to opt out of NOT selling my personal information?
I shouldn't have to read a paragraph of fine print to tell if they are intentionally using a dark pattern or merely incapable of composing a simple declarative sentence.
It's a shame, because it looks like an interesting book.