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

Isn't it nice to have a USB-C port and then use the back panel inductive charging for this?

I don't see why I would want magsafe on my phone at this point.


To be clear. Proper 2FA, via something like a smartcard or any truly external device is still much more secure. You could have one of those factors be a passkey, that's fine, and may be a good idea.

But there are UX issues with passkeys as well, that aren't all well addressed. My biggest gripe is that there is often no way to migrate from one passkey provider to another, though apparently there may be a standard for this in the works?


This works if there's no cost of failure in the meantime.

If we're putting humans into rockets into space, I'd like to think we adopt a balanced approach.


No. This works if you are able to tell a work of fiction and don't have to provide evidence.

And it works because we all know that repetition and practice are, in fact, important. So it feels believable that having people just repeat something over and over is the answer.

Similarly, people can be swayed by the master coming in and producing a single artifact that blows away everyone. You see this archetype story as often as the student that learns by just repeating a motion over and over. (Indeed.... this is literally the Karate Kid plot...)

The truth is far more mundane. Yes, you have to repeat things. But also yes, you have to give thought to what you are doing. This is why actual art classes aren't just "lets build things", but also "lets learn how to critique things that you build."


Isn't this a non-sequitur though? Artemis presumably doesn't have to actually load up humans on the rockets to flight test them.

It works perfectly well when you’ve got deep pockets and unmanned test vehicles though.

False. SpaceX development of Starship is much cheaper then SLS despite using more test vehicles. The claim that building hardware rich is more expensive is not really shown in the data.

NASA has done some analysis on early SpaceX and shown that their methods produced a 10x improvement in cost. And that was with the method NASA uses that often turn out to be wrong.


Those deep pockets are funded by the same pot we all feed from.

And everyone should be happy that pot is TEN TIMES smaller than the pot holders draining the pot with the same goal.

IIUC the issue is, you could have a "secure" network and a guest network sharing an AP, and that guest network can access clients on the secure network. Someone did mention the xfinity automatic guest network, which might be a pain to disable?

This is likely not a big deal for your home network, if you only have one network, but for many enterprise setups probably much worse.


An external firewall with strict no WAN access would be smart regardless.


I still haven't used a system as nice as Ruby on Rails and Heroku circa 2014.


That's a terribly nihilistic outlook on language.

We agree to meaning to communicate and progress without endless debate and confusion.

SI is pretty clear for a reason.


> We agree to meaning to communicate and progress without endless debate and confusion.

We decidedly do not do that. There's a whole term for new terms that arbitrarily get injected or redefined by new people: "slang". I don't understand a lot of the terms teenagers say now, because there's lots of slang that I don't know because I don't use TikTok and I'm thirty-something without kids so I don't hang out with teenagers.

I'm sure it was the same when I was a teenager, and I suspect this has been going on since antiquity.

New terms are made up all the time, but there's plenty of times existing words get redefined. An easy one, I say "cool" all the time, but generally I'm not talking about temperature when I say it. If I said "cool" to refer to something that I like in 1920's America, they would say that's not the correct use of the word.

SI units are useful, but ultimately colloquialisms exist and will always exist. If I say kilobyte and mean 1024 bytes, and if the person on the other end knows that I mean 1024 bytes, that's fine and I don't think it's "nihilistic".


You could think of the SI as a form of language planning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_planning

(Then you could decide what you think about language planning.)


I didn't say all language is planned and agreed on. But we absolutely do plan and agree on things.


> That's a terribly nihilistic outlook on language.

I'm pretty sure any linguist will agree with this definition. All language normalisation is an afterthought.


Technical terms need to be more precise about their definition than regular words.


Incorrect.


Can you elaborate on what's not correct, and what's the correct way to think about it?


Exactly.

If you're talking loosely, then you can get away with it.


They should be more precise if they are talking about KiB in a context where the difference matters... luckily those contexts are usually written down.


Yea I don't understand the issue here. SI is pretty clear, and this post explains the other standard a little bit.

It's really not all that crazy of a situation. What bothers me is when some applications call KiB KB, because they are old or lazy.


because they are old

I keep using "K" for kilobyte because it makes the children angry since they lack the ability to judge meaning from context.


You sly dog.


...old lazy and wrong! Capital K is for Kelvin.


>Capital K is for Kelvin.

It should be "kelvin" here. ;)

Unit names are always lower-case[1] (watt, joule, newton, pascal, hertz), except at the start of a sentence. When referring to the scientists the names are capitalized of course, and the unit symbols are also capitalized (W, J, N, Pa, Hz).

[1] SI Brochure, Section 5.3 "Unit Names" https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/SI-Brochure-9-...


Thus there's no ambiguity. kB is power of 10 and KB is clearly not kelvin bytes therefore it's power of two. Doesn't quite fit the SI worldview but I don't see that as a problem.


I often see it with "kB" too, so the proposed (ugly) hack doesn't really solve the problem.

I think the author had it just right. There's a lot of inertia, but the traditional way can cause confusion.


This only works with kilobytes, not megabytes and gigabytes.


I was pretty sure I'd be corrected in some manner, being two of the aforementioned three. Thanks.


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

Search: