Trezoid

This was talked about yesterday (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5135911) with much more discussion.

It's also worth noting that maintenance people normally get more (significantly so for the more complex machines) then normal crew, and given how frequently the machines break already you start seeing the costs of a robot being more then the cost of paying someone to do the work.

Further the machines get cleaned constantly, and are deep cleaned every night. That takes people, and given how low the crew numbers are normally, you're not going to save anything by having robots make the food.

Suggest he looks at open sans. It's a fantastic screen font that works very well for large headers (especially at a lighter weight), and body copy.

No, you should stick with verdana. It's fully cross-platform, designed from the start to be a screen font, and generally looks better.

Alternatively, @font-face is supported by just about everything at this point, opening up the opportunity to use much better fonts, like open sans

(also, helvetica is a print font. It doesn't work for body copy at the sizes commonly used for screen text.)

Now THAT (international and H1B {though I will soon qualify for the much easier to get E-3 ;) }) would be useful :)

That struck me too. Are they saying no company will offer remote or visa assistance?

Security updates? The huge number of performance boosts and resource use reductions later versions have seen? The very large number of css properties and selectors added?

That's why the dual use pedals like Crankbrother Mallets (especially the mallet 2) with dual-use shoes (like 5.10 Minnaars) are so useful. Riding in clips whenever it's safe, and then when you need that ability to bail, unclip and keep on riding.

Assuming using the web version: click on "sort: top stories" at the top right just under the post button. Change it to most recent, problem solved.

This doesn't seem to work correctly on iPhone though. Changing to top stories seems to get them in chronological order for some strange reason.

For those who missed the links (I know I certainly did): http://www.university.firstround.com/

It really depends on the style of conversation. It's not unusual on some forums to use the quote block (linking to the the comment being replied to) but leave it completely empty to respond to the whole comment. people can click the link to see the context, but don't have to re-read the whole thing again if they're following the conversation already.

On the other hand, quoting individual lines to comment on a specific section happens plenty too.

The only time I've ever seen flat comments work is when there is essentially no discussion (stack overflow) or where there is an obvious mechanism to indicate (and link too, ideally) the comment you're replying to.

Threaded comments allow for more in-depth discussion, while making it obvious where the current thread finishes, so that skimming through is possible.

Adding thread collapsing, or have threads auto-collapse at a certain point with a separate page for that thread solves the "super long tree" issue, since the really long comment threads are hidden away if you don't want them, but still there if you want to read them.

demoing the "row selected" state, by the look of it.

making a benchmark specifically to be slower on your competitors browser? Little dodgy.

From everything I've read IE10 apparently is fast, and the numbers are believable from my experience doing similar things (web workers drawing fractal-like images on a canvas) but given that it's the only "pretty" benchmark in the lot, it just seems a little strange.

Firefox nightly 20.0a1 (released today) runs the test...very well, actually.

Running the test on the latest firefox nightly results in a time of ~3 seconds, so if microsoft IS cheating by doing some browser sniffing they might want to widen the net somewhat, or end up looking bad (in 18 weeks...)

The other option, and still a little dodgy, is that they found operations that ran poorly in V8, optimized the hell out of them in chakra specifically to say "Look, we're faster then chrome!" while just letting the fact that spidermonkey is faster slide because mozilla is way less of a threat then google.

As current student trying to come up with a good resume at the moment, this would be extremely useful.

What have you got against WD-40?

No, Jan 2011.

It's really very old.

Trying to force a "viral" campaign (and I think it's not really viral if you're putting in a huge marketing budget to spread it) strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. Sure, if it comes off it'll be great for them, but most of "viral" marketing campaigns are huge flops that go viral for being really bad (and critically all the names dropped in the article have never really achieved a positive viral success)

Redbull: Sponsoring everything cool.

It is, absolutely, a genius marketing strategy. Their primary demographic just happens to be the kinds of people who watch insane sports. Brand recognition from those events is huge, and then people just happen to drop their brand-name when talking about the events to other people.

Probably cheaper in the long-run than trying to compete with someone like Coca Cola in more traditional campaigns, and way more effective.

I want to know how people are fitting them in pockets. 5 inches IS far too big for a phone. That's a tiny tablet, and apparently is quite good at that...

IIRC there was actually some talk of Adobe legal stepping in to stop the use of the term "photoshop" for editing an image.

For obvious reason it went no-where.

I don't understand why so few lightbox plugins (and sites with custom ones) do the actual image link properly.

The image should be a link either to a page for that specific image (facebook style) or just to the full sized image itself. That way if the person has js disabled, or middle clicks, or opens in new tab they'll still get the image, but you can intercept a normal click and show the pretty lightbox if they're browsing "normally".

It's not like it's super complex or anything, but everyone goes the "image is only useful for the lightbox" path.

Make a list of the worst offenders (it would have to be done per site) and a userscript could easily be made for them.

using:

color: transparent; text-shadow: 0 0 5px;

Works way better for text on non-webkit browsers and is supported by everything but IE (and even that supports it in 10)

The current form of the blur on firefox is just plain ugly, and seems to be an overly complicated way of achieving the effect.

I (fortunately) realized this in first year when I, at the end of a semester had opened exactly one of the 4 textbooks, and then only read < 1 chapter.

The alternative to buying a copy of texts you really need (and I know there are a lot of legal issues with this) is "finding" the book online (and I haven't yet had a book I couldn't find trivially). A couple of PDF's instead of a pile of dead trees, and I have the added advantage of in-text search.

Oddly enough, I've actually used this exactly once. If you've got phantom elements sitting over something it can be quite useful to visualize them

My biggest concerns are how it handles impacts and how it stops. I can just see it folding just like cardboard if it ever hit something and emergency stopping, especially in the wet, could cause all kinds of painful and expensive problems.

Certain groups pay significantly more then that. My university, for example, maintains an island for a particular unit (which I'm currently taking, spending quite a lot of time in SL) and that costs them upwards of low 5 figures a year, and I know absolutely that it's not the only place like it in existence, nor is it the biggest.