kurtisc

Where are things like this said/defined/collated?

The UK Prime Minister made the twit joke in 2009 and it was trite then too.

I agree. Usually if someone gives out a concrete change they'd make to improve git I can quickly point out a simple workflow it breaks because they have a mental model of a Github repo with a trunk and branches. Lots want to couple commit and push, but on this machine

  history|grep 'git commit'|wc -l 

is 20 times larger than

  history|grep 'git push'|wc -l

Constraints can be a virtue. The barrier to entry for making a Tweet is very low, so there are a lot of people who do it. To get the features you've listed, you may need something like Wordpress, where the barrier is much higher. You also know everyone who reads your tweet will consume it in largely the same way for as long as Twitter exists.

Exposure to content is the reason HN exists and why you're reading it at all. If it wasn't posted on Twitter, OP may never have found it (even if a link to a private blog was posted to Twitter) and never shared it for you to read.

The DOW is 30 companies and none of them are unicorn startups, it's related only because it correlates to other indices.

>It doesn't matter. I don't need all those features. The product is commodified.

I've encountered a case when it does matter. I tried applying for a bank online through multiple browsers, OSes, VMs, but never managed to get the form to work. Eventually I called them to apply - there was a valuable perk for me - but most customers just won't bother. A good software team would have spotted the drop in conversions instantly.

I told them about it, using the terrible online form. They weren't interested.

So 'the index' is S&P 500? What about Nikkei 225, how many beat that?

In a non-cynical way: are you aware the PDF can be viewed on the right?

>"CAUTION: this feature was used N times in the last 180 days by all users of the tool where N < 10. Expect bugs"

I doubt it would work, power users turn off tracking. Presumably you can't trust that the tracking will return only what they say it will (and not your internet history) but you can trust that opting to turn it off will turn it off.

I'm reading this on Firefox with a hamburger menu. It's a hard sell that someone else's supposed damaged discoverability is worth me giving up screen space to replace it with a menu bar for things that are rarely used. If they can't work out to click on it, they're not going to find much use from the things that are in it.

English isn't understood globally.

People are very concerned about unsafe human driving and the liability for the massive number of deaths and damages it causes. It's the reason we have insurance and a big reason why we have self-driving aspirations at all.

I think your parent comment was talking about why changing the user-agent 'fixes' it.

Where do you find the words to add to your deck? I add words discovered in lessons - which are great for a proper context - but using words from internet sources (the news, etc.) is time consuming and means I keep seeing words from a few narrow niches (politics, economics, slang) without any understanding of how they'll be interpreted.

>Second, anonymous telemetry is not spyware.

On this note: if you opt-out of telemetry, don't complain when your power-user features stop being catered to.

Or try to change splits

The email contacts feature already existed but was disabled in the past, so it just needed to be a Boolean switch. Like anyone who uses Messenger, I can believe they could introduce a regression and never fix it.

I think this is a really important thing to realise, socially. People feel happy doing things for you. In a misguided attempt to be polite I used to turn down things people offered me even though I wanted them: drinks when I visited, lifts in a car, etc. Eventually I realised I was just making them more uncomfortable and that everyone wins if you accept.

I agree. Print is the most fundamental tool available to you: debuggers are kernel and hardware spanning monsters that introduce an external logic dependency. We don't advocate for more complexity than is necessary in other places.

You also can't be confident that a debugged program is in a natural state without restarting it, at which point the re-setting of the breakpoints and scripting you did in the last invocation - or saving and loading what you've already done - is a pain point. If all of this is quicker than recompiling/relaunching, then IMO there is a second bug in a lack of effective logging.

Most bugs I create are for simple reasons and can be found by scanning the first error logs. If I add print statement debugging because I couldn't then they'll often be adapted into additional logging. If I use a debugger for this as my first tool and don't add logs, I'll have to do it again next time, too[1].

If the bug is not a simple one and is not a structural bug, there's a decent chance it's something debuggers deal with poorly: data races, program boundaries, non-determinism, memory errors. If it's something that can be found by calling a function with certain parameters, it's a missing test case.

So the times I find debuggers to be worth it are after I've already decided it's a difficult yet uncommon bug. So I use them with despair.

[1] If I fix it with a debugger and then add the logs, I still have to prove it gives the right output when it fails.

>he repeatedly delivers (eventually)

This is essentially unfalsifiable. In the case claims about FSD or a person on Mars are wrong then this statement can only be proven wrong when Elon Musk chooses to admit defeat - suffering a significant personal financial loss as a result - or when he retires.

>They were the Ferrari of phones

>There's a reason why they were not reviewed widely

Coincidentally, Ferrari also play dishonest games with reviewers: https://jalopnik.com/how-ferrari-spins-5760248

The Welsh site has different styling

You're right but I've always thought it's a bit sad how many hours must be spent recreating the same similar assets - concrete, grass, clothes, etc. - just so people don't have this clinical moment where they recognise something from another game.

Aren't those are summaries of the icons, not the tools? I'm struggling to come up with a concise and accurate way of describing the abstract actions of magic wand and heal, they might as well have been called foo and bar. I'd argue that you need to know what the icon means to know what the tool does - since you come across the icon first - and so would tautologically know what icon to look for to get the tool you want.

The NHS serves one dialect of one language. If you translate 'menu' into another language, you may need a classifier, an article, a case, a longer word, a non-alphabetic script, changing the reading direction, or more.

Scaling this to a website that serves people internationally and needs to have a consistent branding is much harder than using an icon.

There is a learning curve, it's just one you climbed when you learned the language (which may not be your own).

As part of the UI for something safety critical, yes. But when I'm using a browser and a toolbar is moved behind a hamburger menu, that's a tangible improvement in screen real-estate for the content that I'm using most of the time.

I also notice myself missing road signs while driving in areas with lots of advertising.

Not that (which is similar to my setup), I mean tty[0-6] which come up when you press ctrl-alt-F[1-6]