> What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE
Normally when someone says "1900" they are referring to 1900 AD. Unless BCE had already been mentioned, which here it had not. And if they were referring to 1900 BCE they normally would specifically say 1900 BCE. That's why.
And furthermore, the parent comment above the one talking about "pre-1900" was talking about modern passports. Why would anyone immediately jump from modern passports to 1900 BCE? That don't make no sense at all. Jumping to 1900 AD however, that does make sense. You see?
Nothing in the comment that we are talking about indicates that "pre-1900" is referring to 1900 BCE. It sounds squarely like it's referring to 1900 AD to me. Which is why people are saying it's ridiculous.
I applaud you for uploading even if it’s a bit disorganised still, and I do the same. It’s better to have something than nothing. Sometimes I see people talking about something but they don’t want to upload their code yet because they have to clean it up first. And then either they don’t get around to ever cleaning it up the way they wanted, or by they time they do it will have fallen off everyone’s radar and be forgotten. At least with a messy repo it’s possible to poke around, and not the least to star it and maybe check back later to see if they cleaned it up.
But did they actually mean literally to use ][ as square brackets. Or is it merely an approximation that is meant to be read as Roman numeral two. And then people in that time writing it as ][ because Unicode didn't even exist yet. And then people stuck with that.
And the other is a clone of that repo which was reuploaded manually instead of using the “fork” UI buttons of GitHub. Which is fine and all. But better to link the original as the repo anyway.
I think this is a result of the strategy that the AI chose for picking languages. I saw when it was planning what to do it said that it was going to use a regex against the post titles. Probably it only included the specific languages above in that regex. Leaving some languages out. Which should still mean it hopefully has accurate numbers for the languages it chose to look for, but it might be missing several other more or less widely mentioned languages.
If I ask it specifically to count how many Show HN posts mention Lisp or Scheme in the title, it says there’s a total of 370 mentioning one or the other of those.
> G Data's research showed that the Bitcoin address linked to SnipVex had received about 9.3 BTC, roughly $100,000
How big was the largest amount stolen?
It could be a few individuals with a lot of money in their unprotected software wallets, or it could be a lot of people with relatively smaller amounts stolen from each of them.
If you only have a couple hundred dollars worth of bitcoin and don’t intend to buy any more of it then it doesn’t make much sense to spend as much on a hardware wallet as those cost. But if you have like $500 of bitcoin then it starts to make more sense. Especially if you plan on buying more of it. And if you have over a $1,000 and are still using a software wallet you should really look into getting a hardware wallet ASAP IMHO.
I’ve seen other hardware companies that host firmware downloads for their products on Google Drive and some Chinese cloud drive. I don’t think doing that, nor Dropbox link, is different really from hosting it on Mega.
When I go to the link, the URL is indicating that it will redirect me to a /hn page after I log in.
I write in my email and get sent a login link. I click the button to complete login. I land on a page that asks me to connect PostgreSQL or another data source.
It’s a super small thing of course, and I bet that when I click the HN submitted link again it will redirect me to the /hn since I am now logged in.
But I thought I’d point this out anyhow. Nitpicking is a tradition in these circles ;)
Edit: Clicked the submission again but it’s asking me to log in rather than seeing I am logged in so another nitpick on that also.
Another alternative is to encrypt the document with a very strong pass key, and publish only the encrypted document now along with an announcement that the key to decrypt it will be published on such and such date.
If you are on a platform that doesn’t support posting attachments you can use IPFS or similar to host the encrypted file.
Normally when someone says "1900" they are referring to 1900 AD. Unless BCE had already been mentioned, which here it had not. And if they were referring to 1900 BCE they normally would specifically say 1900 BCE. That's why.
And furthermore, the parent comment above the one talking about "pre-1900" was talking about modern passports. Why would anyone immediately jump from modern passports to 1900 BCE? That don't make no sense at all. Jumping to 1900 AD however, that does make sense. You see?