bct

> The only one I've seen is the gartner snake but here in Edmonton it is just a little bigger than an earthworm.

That might just be because Edmonton has lots of enormous dew worms :)

There are bigger garter snakes around - I live just outside Edmonton and see them pretty frequently. I hear there are plenty of rattlesnakes in southern Alberta too.

Starlink's IPv4 is behind CGNAT, and their IPv6 prefixes are not stable.

The good news is that it's relatively easy to punch through the NAT. This blog post describes an approach that is working well for me: https://www.jordanwhited.com/posts/wireguard-endpoint-discov...

"The Kitchen Knight" has this plot element: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/590413/the-kitchen-k...

In this version it's the Red Knight who is strongest at noon (IIRC).

You can do a lot worse than ACH. It's hard to read, but it's simple and pretty well-defined.

What _really_ sucks is one-off fixed-width formats that aren't well defined, or that change suddenly (oh, you thought that field would always be populated? lol no.)

Even calling it archaic is too harsh. Granted, the batch-centric nature is not ideal (and it's hard to imagine a system with this kind of latency built in being designed today), but if you're designing a system based on batch processing then shipping files over SFTP is a pretty reasonable way to do it.

We know how to build protocols for federated systems - there must be at least a dozen serious efforts at federated social media by now.

What we don't know (or what we've forgotten) is how to get people to use federated systems.

In addition to what everyone else said there are big regional effects: in North America cardholders have often never seen 3D Secure before, they don't know their passwords, and issuers don't care enough to make their authentication pages usable.

But in France and the UK it's pretty standard; cardholders are used to it, and issuers make an effort to decide whether it's worth requiring authentication.

It's not a lightning bolt, it's the rune ᛋ.

The XML serialization Apple defined for plists is awful and not easy to query with XPath.

> If DRM requires a non-standard plugin, and plugins themselves become increasingly verboten

The unstated assumption here is that DRM that isn't a standard won't be built into a browser.

I'm pretty happy having a powerless figurehead, especially if the alternative is presidential elections.

Browsers should e.g. allow tables to be sorted by clicking column headers. They can't, because tables aren't always tables.

> Like, why do we still use plain text in flat files for source code

Information density. Images and graphs are exceptions to the general rule that text can contain a lot more information on one page than graphics can.

We're not talking about crossing the street, which is pretty unavoidable.

We're talking about an expensive gadget that introduces new risks, for a questionable return.

This is a pretty amusing way to document a bug.

In Canada the banks provide this service, and it's used very widely.

zerop posted a comment with links to many different HN clones here, but it's marked dead. Maybe because it included too many links?

> The article listed the speed of a scud at "1,676 meters/second"

Which looks suspiciously like a rounded "3750 mph to meters per second" conversion. Indeed, "scud 3750 mph" turns up a lot of hits.

There's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_English

It would be nice to see a sample so that I know what I'm getting into before I give you access to my LinkedIn.

Yeah, we're still well in the backlash phase of XML's hype cycle.

I just hope that opinion of it as a markup language can be rehabilitated before someone reinvents it and kicks off a new hype cycle.

At least one major security issue has already been discovered & fixed: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1z6gif/butterfly_your...

> If you want an HTML that has an XML style, can you say why?

Because I think that section 12.2 of the current HTML specification is outrageous. (The section is "Parsing HTML documents", if anyone is not familiar with it make sure to look at the subsections "Tokenization", "Tree Construction", etc.)

(That said, I appreciate your detailed comment; this is important history that too few people are aware of.)

(Also overenthusiasm for all things XML had nothing to do with RDF. RDF is not XML.)

You mean the target attribute? It wasn't in XHTML 1 Strict or 1.1, but you're wrong about XHTML 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-hyperAttributes.html#adef_hy...

That breaks down as soon as you have something with attributes, and it breaks down even further once you have something like:

  <p>Example <b>text</b></p>

> making established things harder (<a href="..." target="_blank")

What are you referring to? That example would have worked identically.

> So why is every text editor I have ever seen embedded in a website an abomination?

Because most websites use contenteditable for their rich text editors, which is horrible to deal with. It's not standardized, it gives developers very little control, and its output and capabilities vary a lot from browser to browser.

Web rich text editors that don't suck - e.g. Google Docs - bypass the browser's support for rich text editing entirely. This makes them usable, but it also means everything has to be implemented from scratch, so the code is complex. AFAIK there are no general purpose rich text editors built like this that are open source or even licensable.

There are some pretty good non-contenteditable code editors, though. Presumably Atom will be built in this style.

It failed for a number of reasons - timing, lack of compelling new features, IE's lack of support for application/xhtml+xml, Gecko's Yellow Screen of Death, etc. I'm not sure that you can blame any one of them. And it really wasn't a clean break in the sense that whyme is talking about.