16bytes

It's strength, size and technique of multiple people working together.

You'd think it'd be easy to watch game footage and just replicate what the Eagles do, but other teams haven't been able to get the formula right.

This is the reason that banning it is controversial. Why make it illegal when most teams can't make work well?

Since you wrote this it looks like Anders replied [1] to one of the threads.

I have to agree with the sentiment that is a success story that the team is allowed to use the best tool for the job, even if it suffers from "not built here".

This is really healthy and encouraging to see in these large OSS corporate-sponsored projects, so kudos to you and the team for making the pragmatic choice.

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/411#d...

> I view the fetus as a person, even if they aren’t born yet.

What changed my mind here was the realization that this position comes out of Catholic doctrine that defines "a person" at the moment of conception. Once you made that assumption, it's reasonable to say that abortion ends a person's life (aka murder).

This assumption doesn't match biology, however. In the first trimester, it simply isn't a person yet. It's not a proto-person, and it's not simply a cake that needs to finish baking in the oven. Becoming a person takes active work by the mother's body that isn't completed until well into the pregnancy. You could call that point "viability", but it's not a precise instant in time.

If there's no person yet, then it's the mother's body and it's up to that person what they choose to do with their body, just like in every other instance of bodily autonomy.

It's obviously OK if you believe in the same doctrine, but then it's also not a simple case of ethics anymore.

> Everyone could learn how to make these with a 10 minute youtube tutorial which flooded the market, independent of AI.

I remember back in the 90's a friend who had the same critique of EDM and Daft Punk.

After all, you have to do is learn how to write and play some catchy melodies on a keyboard, learn synthesizers, samplers and sound generation, percussion patterns, and use a DAW.

Is it much easier to self produce Lo-Fi now than it would've been in 1995? Sure, but that's true of music in general. But one isn't going to be able to produce a song similar to what GameChops puts out in 10 mins, even if you are an expert.

That AI is making it hard to have a decent signal-to-noise ratio in Spotify isn't doesn't mean the genre is dead.

They're betting that they can make supersonic travel sustainable and profitable with a new aircraft and engine design. The Concord wasn't either of those.

The business case is apparently solid enough that several airlines are partnering with them during development.

This is the first actual demonstration that they can achieve supersonic flight in their demonstrator aircraft, so it is a significant milestone but they are years away from their full-scale aircraft.

Agree. Apparently the grid is not made up of one letter squares and you have to figure out the row and column, it's made up of two letter rectangles.

What it looks like when you select that rectangle to give you more precision, I could not figure out from the video.

Two or three static images would be most helpful.

Looks like HN uses `line-height: normal`, so it would be the same factor of 1.2 times font-size that's used on the Monospace page.

I thought you meant line width and was confused because it's in the generally accepted range (~70 characters).

The line height, I agree, is too tight. 19.2px at 16px font size is too cramped at only 1.2x. Making it 24px is a big improvement.

To my eye, however, a taller line height doesn't affect the tables and other character graphics. With some tweaks like this I think the monospace style comes across quite well.

* edit - I think I see your point; it does break the author's concept of the fixed grid (set line-height: 24px for p elements and turn on the author's "debug mode" to see the grid.

To paraphrase Feynman, I can't explain to you how the universe expands in terms that you are familiar with because I don't understand it in terms that you are familiar with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

It takes effort to understand those fundamental terms, so if you want to understand this, you'll have to meet people halfway instead of rejecting how somebody is trying to explain something to you.

The universe is everything. There's no outside the universe, since whatever that "outside" was would also be part of our universe. It's not empty space, since that too would be part of the universe. There is no edge of the universe since that would imply that there is something beyond that edge. In scientific terms, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

We've proved the universe itself is getting bigger, which means that yesterday it was smaller and the realization of that fact was how the big bang theory came to be.

There are lots of resources out there if you want to build an intuition around how a universe that's everything can get larger without needing something to expand into.

The balloon analogy is a 2 dimensional example. If you are on the surface of the balloon, there is no "edge". You can go forever in any direction. If the balloon is inflated, it doesn't expand into something (remember we're in a 2D space, it's not a 3D balloon), it "expands into itself".

If you drew two dots on the surface of that balloon, those dots would get further apart as it inflated. What did those dots expand into? Well, nothing right? They just got further apart from each other on the balloon.

So, if you translate this into 3D space, that's what's going on. It's hard to visualize. It's not that the universe is expanding into something, it's that the space between every "point" in the universe is getting further apart.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-universe-expand...

I think you're probably right. A tug (or two) hypothetically could've provided some emergency directional control.

When they reopen the port, it'll be interesting to see what early mitigations they put in place.

There is already something like this in use: harbor pilots, who have specialized knowledge of specific ports and board vessels to navigate them through critical transit zones. It is reported that there were pilots on board navigating at the time of the collision.

Tugs are used in tight locations, but they can only change a ship's speed at a very slow rate compared to that ship's engines. By analogy, you can pull a train car and get it moving by yourself, but if that thing is moving at 5mph you aren't stopping it by yourself in any reasonable distance.

What you are proposing isn't feasible from an engineering perspective. This isn't like putting a guard rail up.

To make damage from collisions "impossible" you'd have to build embankments up so high that the bridge would effectively be sitting on solid ground the entire way across and no ships could pass anywhere.

Sure, there are ways to mitigate collisions and the new bridge they build will no doubt be more resilient, but it's not realistic to completely eliminate such risk.

Thank you. Even after spending 10 minutes reading, I still have only a vague idea of why this project exists.

All of the code examples look like a slightly different syntax for express.js.

So it's a server side javascript framework for handling HTTP requests?

Since it targets multiple runtimes, I suppose it's "express.js but without the node.js dependency?".

I feel like that's closer, but I'm still missing the "why should I care?" part.

Aviate comes before navigate and communicate. The pilot in charge is ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft, not ATC.

The issue with attributing failure, no matter how little suffering there is, is that it provides a huge incentive to not self report and/or downplay incidents.

Unless you are acting with malice, your actions are a product of the system and procedures in place. Those should be the focus of improvement, not individuals. E.g. preventing prod pushes that contain unreviewed code.

Of course we need to talk about individuals, but that's performance management and not incident management.

Be 2000+lbs lighter? That puts it in the same class as a 4runner, which is already heavy for an offroader. The crosstrek that climbed the hill the cybertruck couldn't is about 1/2 the weight.

Housing density can largely be solved with multi-family units that are only 3 stories high. The majority of land-use in Oklahoma City is dedicated to single family houses on traditional plots.

You don't need a super skyscraper that's more than twice the height of the next tallest building in OK to address affordable housing.

Being broadly critical of something outside of heteronormative behavior is ok.

Telling somebody you don't know in a situation that you aren't familiar with that they aren't secure in their relationship comes off as ignorant at best.

Especially since OP describes something on the more casual side of the ENM spectrum as opposed to full fledged polyamory.

You're coupling anecdotes ("where I live"), hypotheticals ("perhaps the solution"), and confounding variables (improved overall vehicle safety isn't just due to vehicle size).

The evidence is clear. Increased pedestrian deaths are largely due to vehicle size.

Perhaps the underlying thought is there must be a way to make cars safer for passengers and pedestrians. One demonstrable way to achieve this is better infrastructure [1][2] rather than just building bigger cars.

[1] https://www.vox.com/23784549/pedestrian-deaths-traffic-safet... [2] https://www.strongtowns.org/

This is a hypothetical scenario. Larger cars impose more risk to both pedestrians and smaller cars.

Even if it was an overall reduction, as the IIHS puts it, "The models that rank among the best and worst performers on both lists point to the unfortunate fact that vehicle cost remains a factor in road safety".[1]

Optimizing public safety in this way may--even if it were true--leads to deeply inequitable safety. Large cars are safer for richer people while disproportionately affecting poorer people and children.

[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/latest-driver-death-rates-h...

> I loved Houston, TX

Houston is famous for its nonsensical zoning and inefficient infrastructure. It's difficult to react to Houston being "freakishly well-designed" with a straight face.

I've been to Houston and it's just a terrible place to visit, even considering the oppressive weather.

Go ahead and point out the lies and/or misinformation.

You are asserting anecdotes ("it'll make driving slower for sure!"), compared to strong towns and https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes, who are professional planners and civil engineers.

They specifically address your exact points in their videos, stroads are bad for everybody, even cars.

The question wasn't if you enjoyed driving vs. other modalities, it was "do you enjoy driving on a stroad?".

Personally, I hate them. They're chaotic, prone to accidents, ugly and well, everything TFA talks about. Well built infrastructure makes it better for everybody.

These kinds of arrangements are all over the commercial industry. For example, grocery stores charge slot fees to determine which products go on which shelves. Pepsi and Coke have exclusive distribution deals at thousands of retail points-of-sale. Companies have been paying to be included in Bundleware as long as the internet has been around. Medications, towards either generics or brand-names, are defaulted to in all sorts of scenarios. Dealerships only use OEM parts.

Should all of those arrangements be illegal also?

> However, we know from years of study on consumer behavior they don't.

Internet Explorer was the default.

If you watch the launch broadcast, the hosts set the expectation that they success meant achieving thrust-to-weight of >1 and clearing the launch facility.

Furthermore, we don't know there was a failure to separate. If I had to guess, once the vehicle was in an unstable attitude outside of the nominal flight path, they triggered the self-destruct and purposefully didn't try to separate.

Heat pumps are not an evaporative system.

You can't lower the temperature across a gradient lower than the fluid temperature, no matter how fast that fluid is moving. You can cool things down faster, but you can't go lower.

So if it's 10F, a 5F heat pump will work equally well at 0mph wind and 30mph.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, how do you proof to make sure you didn't miss a double space after a paragraph?

IMHO, it's better to do something that can be followed consistently no matter the authoring platform you use. Double spaces are hard to enforce.

I can't speak to Vaadin, but adopting GWT was a huge mistake at my old company. We bought into the promise that you didn't need front-end developers or retrain on front-end tech, you can just use Java that you know and love!

As it turns out, if you want to create a great front-end, you need to know javascript & css. You need to understand the difference between what is running on the client and what runs on the server. Corner cases which are super easy to fix with web-tooling turn into an impossible slog of trying to figure out how to get GWT do what you want it to do.

GWT interfaces are famously brittle ugly huge monoliths that send a million AJAX requests that are almost impossible to debug or optimize. There are no separations of concern. There's no defined "API".

It's like having nobody on your team know SQL and only ever use an ORM. At some point you need to break the layer of abstraction.