ndespres

This isn't solely a mainframe thing. The pty/tty designation for terminals on Linux is a reference to when the computer had no display, but output to a typewriter (to give one such example).

My nubians (and nubian/alpine crosses) are much more personable and sociable. I attribute it to the breed being selected for these traits, so that they will be gentle and docile on the milking stand. They're gentle and sweet.

My boers, on the other hand, don't care much for this type of relationship with people. They'll swarm you for food, sure, but they seem much more interested in goats than in people. I don't think any of them particularly like me.

I have a small herd of goats, mixed between dairy and meat varieties of a few different breeds. They're great to have around for lawnmowing, milk, and fun. They are as interesting and expressive as dogs and cats, each with his or her own personality and distinctive behaviors. They can be troublemakers when they want, finding any available gap in the fence just to test it, but who doesn't?

If people had to pay the true cost rather than the often subsidized one, it would be a more equal choice. I wouldn't propose to market "meaty" vs "meatless" on the basis of these hidden costs.

The irony to me is that the $1.55 burger is truly the "impossible" one. Without massive subsidies for feed corn, water, farm labor, etc the value meal burger would not exist.

My original post more accurately could have read "the economics of how a $1.55 meat burger comes to be."

I don't know anything specific about how the Impossible meatless burger is produced. I know that there are some tricky economics involved in beef production, specifically in government subsidies for the corn which is fed to cattle to make beef; the stream of meat "byproduct" which is turned into "ground beef"; and the huge supply of land and water rights used for grazing cattle which was obtained long ago by huge ranches for free or cheap, which any new at-scale competitor (meat or meatless) will have a hard time beating.

Well at some point we will have to reckon with the economics of how a $1.55 burger comes to be. It's simply not possible without sacrificing health, animal welfare, and the environment. Not trying to be preachy about this, but in a cheap meal there are many costs upstream which you pay for one way or another, just not at the counter.

I know you're being facetious but these are the types of industries and activities that don't get the SV disruption treatment, partly because nobody there knows about them. It's partly why I love when these "off-topic" posts get made here. There's now a lot more people read this post and who are now aware of this strange thing that keeps our world working in the way we expect it to- and might have ideas on how to make it better.

Notably missing from this study is any note of the display resolution. The market is flooded with a glut of 22-26" monitors that have the same low resolution as the smaller ones they are supposedly designed to replace.

This is all also really dependent on the applications you run. I'm personally stuck running a CRM and remote control programs that open new windows for everything. 1 large high-resolution display + heavy use of macOS workspace seems like the best way to deal with it, though my colleagues all prefer 2 displays. Anecdotal observation indicates that none of us can easily find the window we were just looking at once we move away from it, so I think the window manager needs work too.

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem.

He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with ("pilots have told us, erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what is already a high workload environment") which puts undue blame on the pilots rather than the system.

If you'll excuse the analogy, it's as if they installed a new griddle in a restaurant kitchen which randomly gets ten times more hot than it ought to be, with no warning. The cook doesn't know it's too hot until the eggs start burning. Now the manager is saying that since the kitchen is so busy, the cook can't flip the eggs fast enough in response to these randomly fluctuating high temperature events. We're being told it's the cooks' fault.

I don't like being bullshitted and find this sort of dodgy language completely inappropriate when 300 people died.

We have rules about elevators. There are elevator inspectors who regularly certify elevator safety, and they are liable if they falsely attest as to its good working order. The owner of the building is also responsible for maintaining their own elevator. There isn't anything the passenger of an elevator can do to meaningfully affect its operation or safety. I suppose if you knew there was someone working in the elevator shaft and you pushed the button to hurt them, you would be responsible for that.

We have rules about motor vehicle operation. The operator is responsible. If you are the passenger in the back seat of a cab, the driver is responsible, not the passenger. If there is nobody else and you are the pilot of an autonomous vehicle, you have to assume responsibility for your vehicle and its actions.

You are assigning blame further up the chain, which I am not doing. I stated in my first post that I do believe the manufacturer is liable for their faulty products, but can not be SOLELY responsible. I might find the gun shop owner for selling a faulty or damaged gun, for example if there was a recall and they ignored it.

If you bought a faulty gun with a broken safety catch, and waved it around in a crowded street, and it fired, killing someone, you should be held personally liable. You brought the gun out in public and created the scenario which caused someone to be hurt by it.

The individual operator (the driver, or the person in the operator seat who presses the "engage autonomous mode" on the car) is the one who chose to buy a vehicle and put it on the road, potentially endangering other people. We need to be responsible for our own actions and the situations we create.

Operators of vehicles need to be held personally responsible for the damages caused by putting their vehicles on the road, whether the vehicle is autonomous or not. Additionally there must be a responsibility for manufacturers to not create faulty products, but that can not absolve the "operator" of the product. It should not be said that the "operator" of a Volvo autonomous vehicle is not responsible for the actions of the vehicle under her control, simply because Volvo says they accept full liability. I think your chauffeur analogy is flawed. If I set cruise control in my car to 75mph in a 25mph school zone, am I not liable? It is not possible to delegate our personal responsibilities to machines, and wash our hands of it.

Volvo's acceptance of liability seems little more than a smart business decision- the cost of an insurance payout to the family of the deceased is less than the money they stand to earn in profit from selling autonomous vehicles. We can't allow this generous actuarial calculation to absolve the operator of such a vehicle of responsibility too. If you don't like it, take the train.

This is nearly 20 years ago. Were CGI and PHP really up for the tasks of serving up the type of dynamic pages at scale 2 decades ago? The "content" (articles) might be largely static but the pages are not, with dynamic ads, weather reports, showtimes etc. Not to mention getting non-technical people to adopt the language easily, transitioning from print publishing workflows. Do you not believe them when they say existing language and solutions weren't working?

> All of those things he counseled them to do - hire people from the public housing projects, meet with labor organizers, etc - should have been concessions extracted before he signed onto the deal.

Exactly my thoughts. Though Amazon should have done this in the first place instead of doing that awful HQ2 search spectacle.

Another thing that jumps out when reading this editorial from the mayor is how strange it is to see him acknowledge Amazons behavior with the min wage tax increase in Seattle that they threw a tantrum about, and yet still he invited them to come to NYC with the tax breaks on a silver platter.

Funny to read this today as I wake up with a "hangover" from taking Sudafed PE last night. I do have a box of "the good stuff" but it isn't rated for night-time use. I think I'll dump the remainder of the bottle out.

Size and number of lanes, for me. I think roundabouts are the multi-lane ones, rotaries are much smaller and slower usually. At least this is what I realized on moving from Massachusetts where rotaries were common, to New Jersey where there were many "roundabouts" which required lane changes and no reduction of speed.

I expected to read a solution, not just the symptoms- but other than the theory that the monitor is connected to a power cable that runs under the floor, and the employee who triggers the screen to shut off is heavier than the others and stepping on the cable, there isn't anything relevant posted there. I'm currently searching for a solution to a clients' random monitor shutoff issue so I was hoping for some insight!

It did, however, give me a greater appreciation for the quality of comments on HN compared to Reddit.

You may wish to try out SheepSaver if you haven't already. There are some tutorials that make the process relatively simple, booting to Finder in a few minutes.

For what it's worth to you, I still remember the first time I watched Windows detect that a folder was full of MP3s and enumerate artist/album data alongside the other typical file attributes, and feeling that it showed a big step in its development. It felt like something close to magic for Explorer to be able to do that.

>Ads are a fundamentally less evil way of satisfying that necessity than taxes.

Strongly disagree. Advertising is obtrusive, distracting, ugly. It defaces our public infrastructure and crowds our minds. It lets companies into our brains nearly everywhere, companies who generally are working hard to make the world a worse place by overharvesting the earths' natural resources in order to make junk to sell to us, or to enrich a select few by selling an experience to the rest of us.

I don't watch television partly to avoid sitting through ads. Raise my taxes to pay for ad-free streets, subways, and everything else that isn't so optional for me.

To which many would reply, "Yes, I can Skype with you. I am at work, so I'll be using my Skype for Business program which recently replaced Lync. My Skype will talk to yours, right? Oh it says here that Skype for Business (which used to be Lync (which used to be Office Communicator)), is now Teams, so uhh can you just call me on my phone instead. Thanks

My coop is outfitted with one of these automatic door kits: https://chickendoors.com/product/right-standard-pullet-shut-...

It opens at daylight, closes at dusk. Adjustable tolerances in either direction which I need to adjust occasionally but not often, like after DST changes to allow the door to stay open longer while the chickens get used to the shorter days, ensuring they can get inside before the door shuts, with darkness falling earlier. Small solar charger and battery keep it operational.

I understand the impulse of the author to design something complicated, but practically speaking there is no need to remotely control the opening of the coop door over the internet, especially if you have a photoresistor already to detect daylight.

I wonder if you're talking about the launcher for managed classic Mac workgroups, At Ease. I have an almost identical experience to you, including the coffee machine (though more of a closet than an office).

Good theory but not necessarily true. The attacker might still wish to use a spoofed domain to ensure that they get delivery of all replies.

In cases where Gmail and Office 365 accounts get hacked like this, the attacker will enable email forwarding to an address they can monitor for replies, and delete replies from the clients so that the compromised person does not see them. I am not sure if you can do this easily with a godaddy mailbox.

I stated in the next paragraph that the situation could just as easily be reversed. We do not have any way to know in this situation whose mailbox was accessed, the OP, or their client.

If I'm reading your story correctly, it matches up with a tactic my clients have been seeing more lately. The scammer has already accessed your account because you fell for a phishing scam, typed your email credentials into a fake login site for a fake Office 365 or Dropbox page or something.

Now the scammers are watching your email closely waiting for the opportunity to do this. Waiting for you to send an invoice to your client, so they can jump in and send a revised invoice with their own payment details on it.

This can happen with intrusion into your email box, or your clients'. Hard to say exactly from your story. But either case, someone's mailbox was accessed by the intruder. A similar scam is possible by just using similar domain names, but in such a case you wouldn't know precise details of the invoices. You can just send a random fake invoice and hope the mark pays it or provides payment details in some way.

One thing worth noting in your story is that you aren't out $10,000. Your client is the one who paid the money to the wrong party. They are the ones who need to work with their banks and reverse the payment. It's not your fault that they paid the wrong person.

Now imagine someone's Ring camera takes a snapshot of the person with the backfiring car and sends it to the police as having fired a gun! Who would build this?

I do exactly that behavior all the time. It's difficult to tell whether an image will expand when I click it on Twitter app for iPhone. When it opens a browser window that I wasn't expecting, I close immediately.

I can not imagine developing this and thinking that it is Good. This type of product and platform completely ignores the reality of how it will be used and how police behave in American society.

In the demo video, their example has someone sharing a photo of "suspicious people" walking around outside their house, and has neighbors commenting "oh no!" on it. Now the police are alerted to this "crime" which may not even be a crime. Anyone who has an account on NextDoor knows the hysteria around a minor event like a car that someone doesn't recognize being in the neighborhood.

The next step is police or homeowner arresting or shooting someone captured on video and posted to this social feed as having committed a crime.

The developers, marketers, SV investors, etc who promote this type of surveillance as a good idea need a course in ethics and reality.