mickeypi's comments

Yes, and this is a huge habit difference between Mac and Windows laptop users I know. Give a Windows user a Mac and they will habitually try to use scrollbars with their fingers. Mac users just don’t have that habit and they find it strange. The reflective MacBook screens also look awful with the slightest smudge so that enforces the “don’t touch” reflex for them, I think.

This is claimed to be the longest-to-discover easter egg ever.

I did the walkthrough - pretty slick!

The same article posted for the 14th time since 2017. https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=c4model.com

FTA:

“Companies interested in the contract included Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle”

and

“The deal was considered "gift-wrapped for Amazon" until Oracle (co-chaired by Safra Catz) contested the contract”.

So pretty much every single large cloud provider went after this, though Google did eventually bow out early. Other than winning the second round of the bidding (and not actually going live), is there something Microsoft did specifically that warrants being singled out?

The extraction of coal is really destructive too. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/28/1010956116/a-coal-mining-mons...

Yes, people also built the buggy software. But the role of software here can’t be overlooked. Because people trust software to run the modern world, there is a high level of trust that this software is working properly. The article says that this trust was misplaced in this case and it caused serious harm. It doesn’t just blame the existence of software, but questions the way in which it is built, used, and the ways in which society places trust in it.

Another reason to breastfeed, if that's a viable option for the parents.

That’s like saying your house is for sale because if someone offered you enough money you’d sell it. Therefore all houses are for sale?

Opportunistically earning some extra cash is a lot different than having to work for a living.

Watergate was a long, difficult, expensive and risky investigation for the journalists and newspaper involved. They did it because, in their opinion, Nixon was doing something wrong. Without opinions, what would motivate real journalism?

The problem with journalism today is not opinion, but that we’ve allowed “newsish” to pose as real news, to the extent that people can’t tell the difference. And on top of that I don’t think people are generally equipped well to recognize opinion as such.

Yes, you can do that with ssh even from cmd.exe. Windows ships with an ssh server too, you just have to enable those features.

Unfortunately it inherits JSON’s lack of support for dates.

Couldn't agree more on the pet peeve. I've stopped having coffee after a great meal at a restaurant because inevitably they'll ruin it with a cup of something awful. Even in places like Vancouver, SF or Seattle with a very strong coffee culture, and where pretty much anyone in the food industry knows a good coffee.

Sorry, that was intended to be implied. The original would say that it matters to them but to any observer it does not.

Yes, and if we actually had a way to disassemble and reassemble humans, the reassembled beings would tell you that the experiment works and their consciousness goes back to their first memories as a child. But the disassembled person would have been destroyed and therefore unable to share their opinion on the matter.

Consider another version: An exactly similar human being to you is discovered to exist on another planet. They have your memories, your aspirations, your habits, etc. They were not created as a copy of you. This person was born to parents, just like you, and lived the same life that you did. They are reading this post on HN right now.

Surely in this scenario the answer to "is it OK to kill one of you now?" is "no".

So why is this different to some people than a synthetically-created clone?

If the internet were used only to publish read-only content, like a magazine, then maybe this would make some sense.

But language shapes thought. It actually limits it. If you can't express something in your language then you are unlikely to even think it. People who speak different languages actually see the world in different ways, with different nuances and details.

And the internet is highly interactive, collaborative and social. You don't have to look beyond HN to see great examples of this.

This means that limiting the internet through a single language means we would be also limiting our ability to form, spread and implement new ideas.

Creativity often comes from finding a curious analogy that crosses domains. If one of those domains has only a poor English representation then it's unlikely that the brainsinvolved in an English-only conversation would discover the novel analogy.

So no, that would not be good for the internet as canvas of collaboration and communication of ideas and thoughts.

http://www.parrot.com/products/rolling-spider/ Not exactly the same thing but similar.