Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ema's commentslogin

Please have a look at the Hacker News guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


To gain more experience with Rust I'm implementing an interpreter for a Lisp-like language in it. As an additional challenge I've committed myself to record the entire development process and put it on YouTube. https://github.com/ema-fox/amber


Read the reply you got more carefully, especially the last sentence is key.


I think Gothic II did this really well. While there are some clear borders a lot of the transitions between the three categories are gradual and organic. You're mostly safe in the secondary settlements but go too far into someone's backyard and you might suddenly find yourself fighting for your life. It also managed to make the place feel expansive without any place feeling like repetitive filler content.


Came here to comment on Gothic, too. I'd have picked the original Gothic even more as an example, though -- there, you are in a prisoner colony, even if you are in a settlement. Anger the wrong people and you won't survive the experience for most of the game.

Also the swamp camp is really close to some rather deadly creatures if you're not careful in the early game.


Centralized infrastructure is fragile and to the extent that the internet has become centralized unscheduled Internet shutdowns are bound to happen. The benefit of scheduled Internet shutdown is that people can prepare for it while at the same time gaining experience which helps with dealing with an unscheduled Internet shutdown.


On the other hand, if we force all systems to be resilient to an internet shutdown then we'd end up regressing society by a lot. Think about how much more work a single doctor is able to handle more efficiently by having internet access (eg. charts, patient history, access to all the world's libraries) that would be lost without the internet.


If we don't force critical systems to be resilient to an internet shutdown, we'll be doing the meme. Specifically:

Weinberg’s 2nd Law:

If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.


The reason you're not hearing any difference between the words in those pairs is because they are pronounced the same. At least according to Wiktionary and my own subjective judgement as a German native speaker.


I've actually messed with Audacity once, extracting the vowels, lengthening them and overlaying, and there is definitely a difference in quality (the length is pretty much the same), it's just that it's very minor to my ear. But native English speakers apparently can pick them up with little trouble.

The difference is much easier to spot in pairs like "bead"/"bid", but that's mainly because before the voiced consonants the long vowel is actually longer than the short one, and the speakers usually add a small glide of "y" at the end of it, so it's more like "beeyd".


I had a native English coworker who used to pronounce it Ü-Bahn and when corrected he insisted that it sounded exactly the same then when I said U-Bahn.

He was perfectly capable of making the same (German) u sound when saying other English words. Apparently it is very subtle, sometimes even for specific things like start of the word and length of the vowel. I just don't know.


There has been open source before Linux and there will be open source after Linux. Yes Linux is a flagship project but the whole culture of open source is much broader than it.


> prevent this scenario from ever happening again.

Every additional nine of not getting hacked takes effort. Getting to 100% takes infinite effort i.e. is impossible. Trying to achieve the impossible will make you spin on the spot chasing ever more obscure solutions.

As soon as you understand a potential solution enough to implement it you also understand that it cannot achieve the impossible. If you keep insisting on achieving the impossible you have to abandon this potential solution and pin your hope on something you don't understand yet. And so the cycle repeats.

It is good to hold people accountable but only demand the impossible from those you want to go crazy.


While I'm always ready to throw away code when I realize that there is a better way to do things I found it quite difficult to write code with the intent to throw it away. However I often do write code with intent of modifying it once I have a better idea of what is needed. It might be because I'm comparatively better at refactoring than at starting from scratch.


The paradox isn't that as a good becomes cheaper we're using more of it. The paradox is that as a good becomes cheaper we're spending more on it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: