nicky0

8 ms·

31.
by nicky0 3y ago
Yes very much so. I maintain an established Mac app and it's almost entirely Objective-C (and the bits that aren't are in C and JavaScript)
32.
by nicky0 3y ago
At least .yu was completely terminated. Wheras the confiscated .eu domains are now being re-listed for anyone to register! Anyone can now claim my old email address and I can do nothing to stop it. This is what bugs me the most about the wh
33.
by nicky0 3y ago
Only idiots would compain about passport control queues. It's nothing like the .eu domain issue at all. A costless administrative accomodation could easily have been made.
34.
by nicky0 3y ago
Well we haven't actually had an election since 2019
35.
by nicky0 3y ago
> The public 51.8% of the voting public
36.
by nicky0 3y ago
> Your proposed solution of grandfathering existing registrations would cause confusion or uncertainty for end users (site visitors) who could not ascertain with confidence that the organisation with which they were dealing was actually
37.
by nicky0 3y ago
Let's not get into Brexit mud-slinging. I simply contend that EU could have made a more reasonable accomodation for existing UK holders of .eu domains.
38.
by nicky0 3y ago
Well, I'm a citizen of the UK and I voted in the referendum to stay in the EU. The EU could have agreed to change its TLD ownershipo rules rules (which they actually have done recently, so the rules are not set in stone) to introduce a
39.
by nicky0 3y ago
I would argue for a "grandfathering in" provision. Both in the Brexit case and your hypothetical Scexit. So, if Scotland became independent, the remaining UK might close the .uk ccTLD for new Scottish registrations but existing do
40.
by nicky0 3y ago
I'm still salty about the .eu thing. I was an EU citizen for 42 years of my life and I used a .eu domain as my primary email address for many years. Not only did the EU decide I could not longer have it, they've made it available
41.
by nicky0 3y ago
But I'd rather they ban eavesdropping not make my call really annoying. Not a well thought through law and clearly needs an update to restore usability to the web Yet you are happy enough to stop at "the intention was good".
42.
by nicky0 3y ago
Don't play dumb. I mean the regime, the one with its hands on all the levers. The one that wants you to pay attention elsewhere. I still think no other platform can do what Twitter does. None other has the same reach and cultural rel
43.
by nicky0 3y ago
They could save money by not building any rockets at all, that's much cheaper.
44.
by nicky0 3y ago
Because learning and improving is part of the pleasure of chess. It's a game you can enjoy to play, but also enjoy to study. As you improve, there's a tangible sense of progression which is rewarding. And the scope for progression
45.
by nicky0 3y ago
Icarus flew too close to the sun
46.
by nicky0 3y ago
It's amusing that you posit the notion that instead of launching the rocket (its entire purpose to exist), they might disassemble it for scrap to save some cash.
47.
by nicky0 3y ago
Don't know the cost but the rate of development is so fast they don't want to keep the old ones anyway. It's not like they would keep it and use it for anything except scrap metal. The technology is so out of date compared to
48.
by nicky0 3y ago
Old Twitter had that "relevancy" because it was was blessed by the regime. It toed the line and supported the messaging that those in power wanted to be put out. Now it doesn't do that, so it's become even more important
49.
by nicky0 3y ago
I'm confused. You're comparing Twitter's audience today to 10 years ago and you think it has _declined_? How confident are you on that?
50.
by nicky0 3y ago
Good point. Are there any code-semantics-aware diff tool out there though?
51.
by nicky0 3y ago
But muh SEO
52.
by nicky0 3y ago
How would you feel about the existence of a website where I could paste into it a text box any Hacker News username, and it would reply with an accurate estimate of the job history, location history, political opinions expressed, net worth,
53.
by nicky0 3y ago
Yes, a very good point. The goal is not "build a rocket". It's "build a factory for building many rockets".
54.
by nicky0 3y ago
They recently changed the pricing. It's now $5/mo for 300 searches or $10/mo for unlimited searches. I'm on the $10 because it seems I do about 600 searches a month. For me it's a bargain, I could never go back to G
55.
by nicky0 3y ago
Missing the point.
56.
by nicky0 3y ago
It's a different development approach. NASA with SLS spent a much longer time and much more money to build ONE rocket, which HAD to succeed. It uses well-established technology and pushes few boundaries. SpaceX philosophy is to build f
57.
by nicky0 3y ago
And somehow you extrapolate from "meeting with politicians and border patrols" to shooting migrants from space?
58.
by nicky0 3y ago
No scientific difference. It's political. A president can trumpet it as a great achievement for humanity. Helps with getting funding & public support, yada yada.
59.
by nicky0 3y ago
They chose not to maintain it, instead to focus on the Shuttle. I'm sure if the political will had been there to maintain the Saturn V/Apollo capability, they could have.
60.
by nicky0 3y ago
Why do you still consider any of this necessary at this point?

More ›