bopbop

Understood - that's also the name of the actual article, although on reflection this article is a bit weirder then your average click bait.

Normally a rise and fall, etc, is only a title looking for eyeballs - what's most odd about this otherwise well researched article is that the last two paragraphs actually proclaim RSS's death, when this is clearly not the case. It's not as prominent without a flagship corporate app like google reader, as noted by the author, but it's nearly everywhere and there are a large number of very usable readers on mobile.

It is a good argument against corporate walled gardens, however.

This article is quite a poor example of the issue you are referring to - it's quite a detailed look at the technical history of RSS - but I love your regex spam queries.

Ask HN: $question_where_the_answer_is_my_own_business is my personal favourite.

Sounds interesting - Do you have a link for that, or if you've got time could you explain?

Not exactly true - every service will have to implement a copyright checking mechanism, which is a huge technical outlay likely to require linking in with a bigger company - which will further cement existing businesses.

Also, just about companies always being keen on furthering copyright, Disney seemed fine about it when they created steamboat Willie, Cinderella, snow white, etc, all based on prior art.

Wow, this whole website is great, thanks for posting this! The frontpage post is currently "Naive City Generation" - https://plaxdev.wordpress.com/2017/09/11/naive-city-generati...

Reminds me of a great stack exchange post, "What are some ideal algorithms for Rogue-like 2D dungeon generation?", although the popular algorithms for dungeons and the like always seem less seed generated, for some reason.

https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/2663/what-are-so...

Well, they managed to murder someone - I'm not sure the fact that it was or wasn't closely observed makes such a difference.

There can be a fair argument as at what stage would it be necessary to remove the driver, but I think the main thrust of the issue is that to the clients, it is promoted as a taxi service and to the drivers, it is promoted as a dating service.

EDIT: This is literally what happened:

"As Huang Jieli—the woman who had served as Hitch’s general manager until she was demoted last week—said in an interview in 2015: “Like a coffee shop, or a bar, a private car can become a half-open, half-private social space. It’s a very sexy application scenario.” And in another interview (link in Chinese) in 2017, she said “the biggest motivation for our drivers is to share a trip with a passenger.”"

https://qz.com/1374431/after-female-passengers-murder-didis-...

It is actually - I've done quite a bit over the past two or three years and 6502 assembly is really nice to program - it's hard to explain, but the fact it only has three registers combined with a relative ton of storage space for variables means you're constantly doing this three-card Monte shuffle that is very satisfying.

It's also all eight bit, obviously, so you're also dealing with nice, human manageable numbers of 0 to 255.

That makes sense, thanks for explaining.

Oh and should probably mention there's another nes kickstarter on now, nebs n debs, which is looking good:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dullahan-software/nebs-...

Haven't watched this but follow the nes dev scene closely, and I'm looking forward to this.

Some other good new releases(all three of these are freely downloadable):

Project blue: http://forums.nesdev.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=16785

Star Evil and FF: http://forums.nesdev.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=16993

For anyone interested in doing some new programming, I recommend starting with nesdougs tutorials, which'll get you started with a dev environment in c:

https://nesdoug.com/

And checking out forums.nesdev.com in general.

As an aside, Let go is such an interesting term. It's such a well accepted piece of corporate doublespeak.

It's like they want to go, and their employer is letting them. They're straining at the leash to be unemployed, and the employer graciously releases them from the burden of their contract.

They're being fired.

This is the third story today about a Google's handling/intentions towards web addresses and general webpages. The theme is Google wants/may want to push a new set of Google orientated web standards. This seems the least likely of the three to be strategically related,however.

The other two: Google may/may not be pushing the open web standard towards their own AMP pages, instead:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17920720

Google wants to get rid of URLs but doesn't know what to replace it with:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17925761

I think we're arguing the same thing -

The designers intention was to design a system that does x

In reality, due to foresight, ability, etc, they have designed a system that does y

Because their system sits inside other systems, it is transformed (think of your 1.0 to your 1.1 to your 2.2 to your html5). External design influences sand off and transform what they designed (i.e. google, the unwilling ad company)

Every system is perfectly achieving what it is designed to do by all of these designers. Reverse engineer it's outputs and you will understand it - although you will have to figure out all of its designers. In a capitalist society, however, finding the biggest designer is easy - Follow the money.

It's a bit of a truism, but I still find it to be a very useful tool. We're not talking about the code of Facebook here, after all, were talking about the social output.

Thanks for responding, I respectfully disagree.

The statement is saying if we look at the outputs of a system, it is producing exactly what it has been coded to do, intentionally or unintentionally. Facebook is producing exactly what it is designed to, not by a single overarching design but by hundreds or thousands of humans who have had input in to it. When the programs you mention don't get the results they were expecting, its either because of bugs in them, or because the programmers didn't understand why the output would be.

The program, however, is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

Facebook is attempting to monetize the signals between humans, like a robber baron AT&T trying to sit between every phone line extracting coin. It will continue to do so as long as that continues to turn profit and excellerate its worth on the stock market.

Anything else is coincidental.

So this has been down voted twice, but with no further comments.

I find the statement to be a rather interesting piece of logical jujitsu that I use often - if you believe it not to be applicable in this case (or possibly at all) would you care to explain why? I would be interested in hearing your opinions.

Installing GIMP again recently and finding single window mode was a great, great joy.

"Every system is perfectly designed to get the results that it gets."

Similar to the Google push for AMP pages:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17920720 https://www.polemicdigital.com/google-amp-go-to-hell/

There's a great comment about the link between these two over there:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17923156

That's an excellent quote, thank you.

Having said that, my take on that quote is that it seems a bit of a cop out - a way of absolving oneself of the consequences of ones actions.

You may well regret both, but perhaps you will also enjoy one, or you will regret one less, or regret one more, or one has ramifications which due to your (hypothetical) selfish nature you may regret but are better for society, etc etc etc.

Or is it meant to be more of a call to action as opposed to inaction? Make decisions, because you are damned regardless, so at least add your own breath to the winds of fate?

amazing, thank you.

Is this powerful enough to run a NES? As in, can it run a 2mhz 6502 chip with some extra space for the sound chip, etc?

I think the parent comment answers this quite comprehensively - because (it would appear the parent comment believes) Indian companies will work more closely with the Indian government for more oppressive surveillance of its people.

The big multinationals are harder to push around.

I'd imagine, providing Google doesn't get too much negative feedback from it's upcoming censored China search engine, they'll likely make a censored version for India if they see it as a big enough market. Hey presto, the worst of both worlds!

Possibly off-topic but it's so sad that the greatest minds of our generation, the previous generation, and the next are all working out how to maximize digital profiling to more accurately sell us things.

Second only to this is the creepy fact that tools like Deepmind are being built with the purpose of furthering these goals - all of the chess/go beating is literally a side line.

I think this is why people like Elon Musk - he may have some socially reprehensible behaviours, but at least his end goals are either benign or helpful to humanity.

I agree with you in that I don't like it - I was just providing some more information on the issue, from presumably the same source you made your comment from.

In terms of a Debian firefox etc, I would worry about two things:

1. You'd be fragmenting the non-corporate* browser market, weakening the good that can come of that. Mozilla are invited to the table at browser discussions, Debzilla probably won't be.

2. You're reliant on the upstream from Mozilla, so you're still needing them to be big enough to continue to generate the base software the fork is coming off.

I don't consider Mozilla to be a bad actor and in fact like them a lot (although you may feel differently) however they have done multiple anti-user actions I don't agree with (this would be one of the lesser ones).

How are firefox design choices steered? Is it just at the whim of the corporation? If not, what would be the best way to become politically active in steering design choices like these in a pro-privacy pro-user direction? It seems like there are enough people with a similar sentiment on Hacker News to provide political weight to these issues.

*yes, strictly speaking Mozilla are corporate but I would say there are appreciable differences between them and Google, Microsoft, etc

Honest question - What is it you are considering as the alternative browser in this situation? The other big 3rd party (non-os supplied) browser is literally made by google.

Apparently it respects Do Not Track, according to some discussion above and at https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785

The link also seems to say you can block it in uMatrix, but it isn't by default

That's an amazing stat - do you have a source for that?

I think it's only loyalty of userbase - they're the first mover of privacy conscious search.

Any competitor would have to prove credibility in the field, as they'd be trading on ethics.

I use DuckDuckGo exclusively - the only two reasons for me to stop I can see would be some kind of ethics scandal, or the quality of the search dropping dramatically.

I'm very happy with it currently.

Right, I get your previous comment now. I would agree with it if it where:

"Democracy generally means I am being governed according to some, but not all of my wishes."

The fact that you are/are not being governed according to some of your wishes in a non-democratic society is coincidental. Why it may or may not be true for any given government, it is not inherent to the structure of any non-democratic government.

For all of the subsequent points in this comment about compromise, that's desirability in a democratic (small d) candidate - that doesn't have anything to do with the system itself.

But yes, I appreciate all the points you are making about the candidates - I would say Bernie does compromise, but his stubbornness is part of his desirability, certainly.

Hilarys ability to compromise becomes extremely clear when you look at what she stood for in the 70s/80s and the policies she pushed while running for presidency.

Thanks for clarifying, that was interesting.

That would only be true if the whole of society was driving and we took an average.

The socially agreed upon limit is the legal limit.