grgbrn

Yes, I think it's a very ambigious term.

My problem with your definition is that it doesn't take into account the reality of connectivity at the time (at least in my experience of the early 90s) - not a whole lot of machines had IP stacks that were connected via ethernet/isdn/t1/etc and online all the time. Certainly you'd have to be pretty special to actually own one or have one at home. Connecting over some kind of tty or dialup was extremely common.

So using your definition, a sizeable percentage (possibly even a majority?) of people who were online and doing things on the internet during the QModem era were doing it through computers that were not "connected to the internet". Which seems obviously silly.

Indeed, I was there, I know. As a starving college student, using QModem for part of it.

> that's not the same thing.

I think your definition of "connect to the internet" make sense today, but would be ridiculously narrow when applied to the QModem era given the computing landscape at the time. Where do you draw the line? Using a tty style terminal connected via serial to a unix box connected via ethernet? How about SLIP/PPP?

I guess my problem with your definition is that you end up saying that a very large percentage of people who were online at the time were using the internet through computers that were not "connected to the internet".

Until the mid-90s the internet was predominantly text anyway, so it's not like you were missing out on a whole lot if you were "only" using a terminal.

Oh I wasn't trying to reverse-engineer his network from that comment, just saying that this was a thing that was possible and that people did at the time.

I agree it's highly unlikely that the AT was running slirp. Wikipedia says an AT was a 286, so it wouldn't have been linux. Not even sure what the options would have been. Minix? Xenix?

Maybe your association would be different / the terminology would make more sense if you were online in the early 90s?

BUT, it was definitely possible to do what you're describing with some combination of a dialup shell account, a terminal program like qmodem and something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slirp

That's precisely what QMODEM does? What do you think it does?

Can you do anything aside from low-effort shitposting?

So you're here telling people who were actually using these APIs that we're wrong to be upset, because LLMs? Awesome, super helpful, thanks

LLMs require data, as I'm sure you know. This is locking up what was previously an interesting source of data, which undermines your argument over the long term

Before he was a food writer he worked in a number of fairly high-end restaurants in Boston (which he talks about occasionally on his Youtube channel), and then he opened his own restaurant in 2017ish. Not sure how that's "not a chef"

Uhh.. damning praise. I think that can be rephrased as: "It's pretty, but despite being almost the simplest thing you can imagine, it still has ridiculous, unnecessary usability problems"

Same! At first I thought it might be a Firefox problem, but it's equally broken in Chrome.

Predictably it's a React site, using some widget library (MUI) that is going out of it's way to provide a text input that is inferior to what's built in to any modern browser. Great!

Seconded! I would highly recommend NTS. Their archive is great, dives into almost anything you can think of

I didn't downvote this post, but I don't find it hard to see why someone would:

* making incredibly general hand-wavy statements implying vscode is always perfectly lag-free and emacs is terrible

* generally condescending and hostile tone: "if you invested the time.." "you saw fit to reply with"

* some ranting and name-calling about a previous negative experience this person has had, which has nothing to do with anyone in this thread. (given the general tone of this post, i'd say there's a good chance that it was just this person deciding to abuse some unpaid emacs/lsp volunteer/maintainer and they rightfully said "go fuck yourself")

* sadly, there is actually useful information contained in this post, but it's sort of structured as an inverse "shit sandwich" - some ranting and negativity, some useful and relevant information, and then more ranting and name-calling. which, i think, tends to mean most people are just going to ignore it or downvote. not really a constructive contribution to the discussion, despite actually having something useful to say

> VS Code in its current state has no perceptible input latency on modern hardware, easily verifiable.

"easily verifiable"?!!? This is a ridiculous statement - lots of VSCode responsiveness is dependent on which language servers you're using, and some are definitely faster than others. Sounds like you're extrapolating from the languages that you personally use?

The golang LSP has had widely documented performance problems on large codebases on and off over the past 2ish years (mostly resolved at the moment AFAIK), but it was severe enough that a large percentage of my group at work switched to Goland (Go IDE from Jetbrains) because it was much, much less laggy on our larger projects than VSCode.

Zelle doesn't support all banks - the call to action on their home page is even "See if your bank offers Zelle". My credit union, sadly, does not. So it's not really comparable to EU IBAN transfers.

Title seems very incorrect. First issue of Wired was 1993, not 1998. The URL makes it look like this is from 1998, so definitely not from the first issue.

Zero sympathy, fuck this guy

Also Firefox. I wonder which browsers work?

Not just yiddish, it's also common slang in many parts of the US to mean a very stupid or incompetent person. So yeah, terrible branding IMHO

I'm not sure how you square "If you can't keep up then don't" with what sounds (to me) a lot like "I have an idea that I want to implement, but only if I don't have to learn anything new"

To try to be at least somewhat constructive:

I took PPK's argument as: "Trying to cram everything and the kitchen sink into your browser so that you don't have to ever write native code may be appealing, but it risks collapsing under it's own weight."

Which, to me, doesn't seem so ludicrous that it deserves to be shouted down.

I always assumed it was to avoid card swipe fees. Margins at small restaurants can be incredibly thin, so a percent or two off each transaction could make a big difference.

It's a complex topic, and I'm no expert. But based on all of the contradictory studies out there, I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it sound.

For example, a new study done in Sweden was in the press recently which sounds to run counter to the ones you've linked to.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2157532/Atkins-die...

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/time-to-re...

Interesting, that's the first dictionary i've ever seen that lists it - Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Websters all claim it's not a word. (As well as google - "Did you mean: minimalist")

In any case, all three are adjectives with what appear to be interchangeable meanings, so using the shortest suitable word seems most in the spirit of minimalism.

Am I the only one irked by the use of the non-word 'minimalistic', when the shorter 'minimal' or 'minimalist' is what is really meant?

It seems like a serious blow to one's minimalist cred. :)