Holy shit this made my day. Warp’s convenience shell wrapping is amazing. It’s the only terminal where I can actually edit a long command in place rather than copy pasting into an editor and doing so there.
Now I’m more or less assured I can retain this convenience without being forced into more AI crap.
This is an excellent addition to the lineup and changes the list of reasons for why the average person would go for a Windows laptop from “cost” to practically nothing, but from a consumer perspective, is there any reason to buy this over M1 MBA which can be purchased new for less than the education discounted version of the MB Neo?
It is genuinely incredible how well-fitting clothing is only generally available to some one-third of women who fit well into the anticipated height-waist ratio. Petite options exist in some places, but god forbid you're tall - your choices will be limited to "too short" and "too short and also too wide" if you try to go for a size up.
The reaction to Discord age verification fiasco once again makes me believe that HN users just don’t have friends.
There is no alternative for Discord for bigger groups.
If there was, I still couldn’t move multiple social circles to it, no matter how much I evangelised.
The “just don’t use the less morally aligned platform” argument has always been valid only for those without a strong need for it, whether it’s X or Discord.
I don’t understand how? Wouldn’t the signal be highly directional? Surely it wouldn’t be easily detectable unless the viewer’s POV intersects the path of the beam?
Guys, the author presents an overall reasonable argument and I think it's more useful to engage with it in good faith than going "so it's all my fault just because I'm a man?" - no one's implying that.
At its simplest, the point is that much of programming language design is done with a masculine perspective that values technical excellence and very little feminine perspective that focuses more on social impact. Most, including myself, have a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss this argument since at first glance it appears to trade off something known useful for something that's usually little else than a buzzword, but upon further reflection the argument is sensible.
The theme of forsaking technological perfectionism in favor of reaching whatever end goal you have set is widely circulated on this forum and generally agreed with. Those of us that work as software engineers know that impact of your work is always valued more than the implementation or technical details. It's thus reasonable that when building programming languages, the needs and experience of the users should be considered. Not override everything else, but be factored into the equation.
I know if I were to write a programming language I'd probably focus on pushing the boundaries of what's technologically possible, because I find it fun and interesting. But I would have to agree that even if I did succeed in doing so, the actual impact of my work would probably be lower than that of Hedy - the author's language. Hedy is not novel technologically, but the fact that it makes it meaningfully easier to learn programming for significant numbers of people is real, undeniable impact.
Lastly, I want to note that the author's argument for underrepresentation of women in PL cannot be reduced to "those nasty men are keeping us out". Humans are tribal and any group of humans is bound to form complex social structures. Those are going to affect different people in different ways, linked paper investigates the effect on those structures on specifically women because the topic is close to the author. Whether you care about low numbers of women in PL design or not, the dynamics that have led to that being the case are worth investigating and are quite interesting on their own.
The author is not advocating for friendlier messages in the googlesque sense of dumbing them down or introducing more positive wording, but in the sense of making them more readable and useful.
Of course it does not matter for "a straightforward computer error message", in cases where the error is a simple type mismatch or a missed semicolon, but if those were the majority of the problems we encounter as programmers, our work would be trivial.
It's not difficult to imagine a situation where structuring a compiler in such a way that it keeps more state and perhaps has to perform more analysis is worthwhile, since a more useful error message saves the user time in understanding and fixing a problem.
An example that comes to mind is when in Rust I tried to create a dynamically dispatched trait, where the trait in question contained a function an argument of which was generic over a different, statically dispatched trait. Since the compiler did not know at compile time the exact object which would be instantiated, it was incapable of inferring the exact type of the second, statically dispatched trait at compile time, thus failing to compile.
The error was presented to me in a clear way that pointed out the problematic relationship between dispatch types of the two traits allowing me to understand and fix the problem quickly. If the error message was far simpler, such as "can't dynamically dispatch trait", I would have figured that out too, but it would have simply taken more valuable time. Most importantly, having to track down the issue from a minimal error message, would not have been an honorable test of my intelligence and emotional maturity, it simply would have been inefficient.
Could anyone more knowledgeable on the topic explain to what extent common wireless connectivity standards are open and feasible to implement for, say, a medium sized company? Apple has been working on a 5G modem for what feels like a billion years, but other standards seem to be more democratized.
So, why are we mad about this? The techniques used maintain perfect privacy throughought the process. It's a neat feature with no downsides for the user.
That's.. actually not a bad looking car. I mean if I had infinite money to spend on a supercar I can certainly think of a dozen others I'd rather go for, but given that most people were expecting an eyesore, I think the new Jaguar looks pretty good while also admittedly being very unique. Looking forward to seeing it on the streets.
Some comments try to justify this - they’re wrong.
Even if it was just 1% of users, outright ignoring their issues is not acceptable. And far more than 1% travel abroad or do other suspicious activity (such as buying things at a place you’ve never purchased from before).
And there are services that handle this correctly. Starling bank (UK) is a fave of mine. Confirm in an app, enter full password in some cases, but that’s it. I had to make some sketchy looking transactions and no matter, they never block your account or make you jump through additional hoops.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, your second source does very much imply some people can tell the difference quite reliably. As expected, regular people can scarcely tell the difference, but musicians are better at it and sound engineers are in fact quite accurate.
This matches my own experience well: most of my friends do not care about various levels of compression, nor what headphones they use - that's fine, I'm glad they're enjoying art in their own way - but I, and some others, do in fact stand to benefit from less compressed audio.
I've personally done blind tests on myself using a python script that randomly plays compressed and uncompressed snippets of the same track and mp3@320 was not transparent to me (though opus@256 was).
Can I tell the difference when casually listening? I don't know, but when the cost of lossless is having my music collection take 60gb instead of 20gb on my 512+gb device, I have no reason not to go for lossless.
I actually think going the tokenization route is a good idea. As a positive side effect of the cryptocurrency boom, a lot of good research on POW/POS secured distributed systems was done and it would be a waste to not at least consider using this research.
As long as you hide the details in the depths of documentation of the protocol, make up alternative terms to those that have been tainted by cryptobros and don't mention any relation to cryptocurrency-originated technology, you would probably successfully avoid having parallels drawn between your project and cryptocurrencies.
Sure, someone might cobble together an API and put your token on a cryptocurrency exchange against your best wishes, but I think the risk of that is low. It's easy enough to launch your own crypto and if I'm looking to run a pump and dump scheme, why attach myself to a project that openly distances itself from the crypto scene?
The value of a HN post lies not so much in the article itself, but in the surrounding discussion. While notable, a discussion about Prigozhin’s rebellion would have likely dissolved into low-value political squabbling.
On the other hand, an interesting, but unimportant happening such as the one in this post is fertile ground for quality comments.