mortar

2015

Previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10652076

Thanks, this helped me find the submission and related discussion thread - https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250401-488-generating-bundles-...

Makes me want to go through all my existing repos to see if this has already happened somewhere

Ahh thanks that’s useful to me as all. As someone that grew up with carpet everywhere, it would be always shoes off by choice - But now we avoid carpet everywhere as my son has dust allergies of all things, and carpets are ridiculously hard to keep clean.

For me, my shoes are predominately thongs (also referred to as flip flops in others parts of the world), and they’re directly next to my bed. They provide arch support which would otherwise leave me aching walking around the house presumably onto the flooring with little to no underlay.

I wear them non-stop until I hit the shower - I only have one pair but my wife has exponentially more and cycles through her pairs constantly, with a ritual cleanse in the shower for each used pair at least once a week.

This was mentioned in a more recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43799802

Awesome, that makes sense now - thanks all!

> the template string expression itself (resulting in a Template object) will take a long while to evaluate

Are you saying that calling:

     template = t”{fib_slow()}”

Will immediately run the function, as opposed to when the __str__ is called (or is it because of __repr__?) - Apparent I might just have to sit down with the code and grok it that way, but thanks for helping me understand!

> If a single interpolation is expensive to evaluate, it can be explicitly wrapped in a lambda in the template string literal

I’m having trouble understanding this - Can someone please help out with an example use case for this? It seems like before with an f string we had instant evaluation, now with a t string we control the evaluation, why would we further delay evaluation - Is it just to utilise running a function on a string first (i.e. save a foo = process(bar) line?)

On 2, I was surprised the author included the screenshot in their write up so I did some very pointed searches on some of the strings, and was surprised to see just how many profiles on LinkedIn were sourced for this farce. Good work LLMs

Very tame in the scheme of things, but my go to prank was on a Windows machine, take a screenshot of the desktop with all of its icons, and then disable the icons. Doing it in a whole computer lab caught far more people double clicking in confusion than I expected.

Not necessarily, but agree that bad managers or organisations have a tedency to do this.

I guess the ultimate goal is to keep everyone happy right? Everyone has different ideals, you can probably assume the business wants everything to work by spending as little as possible, employees want to be paid as much as possible while enjoying their job. Striking that balance is always a challenge.

Good suggestion and I can see the benefit for honest people, but unfortunately it’s as equally a system for financial abuse for others - sometimes enough to prevent people fixing things during their regular hours just to benefit at other times.

A good counter balance to this might be to offer even more compensation for no incidents, or otherwise well handled incidents that go on to squash types of that incident now and into the future.

I feel for you, I’ve also suffered through this a lot over the years, and am finally at the stage of career and wisdom to start pushing back on the quality that I can’t control and ensuring that others are equally as accountable for their mess.

For one particular occasion , once we took blame out of the equation (at least within the engineering team) and started doing Post Incident Reports, the incentives finally became clear for the business as we were able to compile a list of recurrent issues during every issue, calculate a financial loss and present it for inspection each and every time they either began a witch hunt for downtime or refused to allocate time to backlog. Small wins.

Thanks, just downloaded it to try and purchased instantly - great app! Have been “playing” Für Elise for so many years on piano, but forgot how to read sheet music years ago and didn’t quite know how to get back into it. Thought Synthesia would help but struggle at certain parts so the repetition and score based learning will help a lot.

Just learnt about whiteout files from this, thanks! Trying to understand if you purposely included a filename into a layer with the same whiteout prefix “.wh.”, if it would mess with the process that is meant to obfuscate that prefix from subsequent layers.

2015 - https://archive.is/MsYOu

Indeed, thanks for clearing that up!

I see this now, thanks for the clarity!

I think you’re right, perhaps I’ll do some more reading about it - It seems like it all relies on what the extension does, and if this extension is open source someone will notice as you said. Thanks for the clarity!

The method is secure until they change it. Their docs mention that generating a token is not anonymous, but using a token is. Considering they already know who generated it, it could be trivial for them (to change something server side where the validation occurs, if compelled) to link a particular search to a user.

Thanks, yes completely agree! I guess the part I’m concerned with is the politically side whereby they could be potentially compelled to change the method slightly after the fact and be forced to slip something in somewhere in a quite technical process now making it possible.

I’d love to assume this will never happen, I’m just concerned that even if it did I’d never find out - Because unfortunately the more popular this service gets for bad actors, the more of a target it becomes for the government with identification of users.

I guess as a search engine, we could assume the government may leave them well alone and still just focus on content creators.

Definitely suggesting the method is secure, assuming the company does all the things they’ll say they do, which I also agree they’ll do. I’m just concerned the government can destroy this all, just by compelling them not to, and change a well intentioned method at any moment.

The reason they give in their docs is to “prevent abuse” (https://help.kagi.com/kagi/privacy/privacy-pass.html).

It feels like they picked a number no user should hit, while keeping it low enough to not pass Kagi out “free” to all their friends.

I’m not insinuating for even a second that Kagi actually do this, but as a general rule, isn’t any privacy claim dubious at the moment given that more and more governments appear to be able to compel companies to identify their users (especially those searching for illegal content) and further forcefully insist they not disclose it?

It’s disheartening to think the great progress we’re making in this sector could be undermined in a few seconds against any companies efforts with a trivial backdoor.