xphx
xphx on Hacker News
> treaties [...] not based on trust
How are these treaties enforced? All international treaties are ultimately based on trust. There is no higher authority, only elective councils of and voluntary commitment to procedures (a.k.a. promises) by sovereign states.
Specifically not even these formal promises have been given by e.g. the United States of America which to this day has signed but never ratified either the VCLT[1] or the VCLTIO[2], so is figuratively giving a lukewarm "let's see about the convenience of that when it comes up".
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o...
A 2016 talk by Tribeflame CEO Torulf Jernström about the monetization of mobile games called "Let's Go Whaling!" also caused a bit of a ruffle a while ago.
Ominously delivered with smug smirk, met by smug laughter: "I'll leave the morality of it out of the talk. We can discuss it, if we have time, later."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4
Turns out they would have had time later but for some reason opted not to.
> If this person has opinions on software engineering, why not just voice those as an individual?
That is what the author is doing. There is no functional difference between them saying "Guys, IMO this is the best way of doing stuff" and "O People of the Earth, come and heare my crede!"
Wikipedia: "A manifesto is a published declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual [or group.] A manifesto usually accepts a previously published opinion [...] or promotes a new idea with prescriptive notions for carrying out changes the author believes should be made."
Does "frequently" mean once a year on Jan 1? Does "infrequently" mean a hundred times today at truly random intervals?
Written as though it's competing for the attention of fourteen-year-olds against meme scrolls, video games and online porn.
Unfortunately that is also the problem with rational arguments if they are deliberately or ignorantly reductive, i.e. without holistic perspective.
Web.de was founded in 1995 and GMX in '97. Both now belong to the gigantic German United Internet AG founded in '88 which currently has roughly 10,000 employees and EUR 5.5bn revenue.
Or if homogeneous data is fine, just cat or dd from a source like /dev/zero.
> If every statement fit within the column limit of the page, yup. It’s a piece of cake. (I think that’s what gofmt does.) But our formatter also keeps your code within the line length limit.
I think you are correct and am confused why you're being voted down without explanation.
I did underappreciate this, thank you!
One Jesus of Nazareth is tolerable, a million people preaching their opinions everywhere would be truly awful. Therefore what Jesus was doing is immoral.
Sorry, but Wikipedia also doesn't get to decide what words mean, nor you or I, at least not authoritatively.
Linguistically, tax evasion is: evasion of taxes. I can use the words to describe any action taken to evade paying a tax. The words simply do not imply a state of legality.
That there are domains that overload the terms with extended restrictive meaning is by definition arbitrary and has no priority over natural language.
Usually Wikipedia indicates this by explicitly naming the domain, e.g. "In US tax law, tax evasion is ...", but fails to do so here.
> a relief when i click on a link to any site, and the page loads, and there's no animated anything whatsoever
I've recently disabled CSS animations globally in Firefox's userContent.css and my Web experience has indeed improved considerably. (Annoyingly this particular page content still jumps a little because of some deferred image loading.)
* {
animation: none !important;
transition-property: none !important;
}
This obviously does not affect scripted animations.
It would be nice if sites respected the prefers-reduced-motion browser media feature.
There is a not so subtle implication of your comments being voted down that those claiming HN is not an instance of social media would be well-advised to reflect on.
>> Maintain (a low waist circumference) and (muscle mass)
Yes, the stated original requirement to "find that one person who’s been suspended and is incredibly dangerous" does presuppose that the dangerous person is already in the system and you're just trying to find them.
I don't personally find the rationale persuasive, I'm just answering the question how it could possibly be considered useful.
I believe the questionable rationale there is that it helps to identify suspended students whose presence is assumed to be dangerous.
“The mission creep issue is a real concern when you initially build out a system to find that one person who’s been suspended and is incredibly dangerous, and all of a sudden you’ve enrolled all student photos and can track them wherever they go[.]”
It's an ageist way of saying that this exploit is less critical for people who take proactive counter-measures, and more affects less technically inclined or security-minded people.
That would invalidate the byte offset. The intention here isn't so much printing the data as its location on disk.
Isn't that the same as when someone offers me a couch to surf and a kitchen to use? Sure, it's unconditional and I'm not violating any agreement, but if I use their stuff and don't give anything back, am I not a freeloader?
Could you explain how the term does not apply? Its meaning seems to be: "to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved".
Hopefully useful nitpick: In the "prisoner's dilemma", it's the dominant strategy. It's only sub-optimal in the /iterated/ prisoner's dilemma, the ominous reason being an expectation of continuity.
What is a menu bar offering you that makes or breaks a program for you versus several political, philosophical, ideological, practical, and technical other differences?