Well I was recently at a US airport that had automatic "scan your face to board the plane" gates (non-optional) instead of providing boarding pass + passport, so from there to "scan your face to pay" it's a very small leap. They already know all about you and have your biometric identity, what's tacking a payment method to it?
Sorry, I was responding in the original context of GP talking about Newark airport's terrible system. In it, scan your face to pay doesn't seem too far fetched; outside of it, I agree, pretty scary stuff.
Somehow I always end up defending China on HN but really I'm just sharing what I have seen/heard during my time there.
The majority of the Chinese do not worry about those things.
The great firewall is probably the greatest inconvenience you listed. However, the Chinese that come here and see FB and Google say, hey, maybe the firewall is not a bad idea. It's easy to circumvent anyway. It just blocks the majority of the population from western media.
The social credit system I don't know anything about, sorry.
The camps, AFAIK, are for Uyghurs classified as dangerous or high risk. At least, that's what the Han believe. The general understanding is if you do something like text "terrorism" as a Uyghur - you disappear for a while. I think part of this is because they are terrified the US will radicalize the muslim extremists. The truth is we barely have to - they hate the Chinese enough there are recorded events of the Uyghers just running around killing Han Chinese with knives. This was before cameras were super popular, but there is potato footage. This is partly why large cities in Xinjiang have such high security (think officers with MP5s outside every K-6 school) So, the Han do not protest at such camps.
Looks like the great firewall worked well for you. Painting an entire ethnicity as terrorists who slash away randomly at people is exactly the kind of propaganda it serves. Israel does the same for Palestinians. Yes, terrorism exists and should be supressed, but you can’t de-humanize entire populations based on that.
Picture yourself being jailed, taken away from your family, forced to learn another language and change your customs because “people who look like you can be dangerous”.
Internal destabilization by manipulating group fractures is a known specialty of US foreign policy.
China has valid reasons to be concerned about such methods given explicit admissions from the US government at the highest levels, that they are considered an enemy.
I'm in Thailand right now. The US is attempting to destabilize Thailand with the coming elections in order to break its strong ties to China, ties that are quite reasonable and rational given the cultural and economic ties between the countries. The Americans are seeking to get rid of the Thai monarchy, which the average Thai is not particularly interested in doing.
The fact that you think this is something you should be concerned about when sending your kid to school shows that you lack critical thinking and base your idea of the US on agenda pushing media instead of rationality.
Even in the US your kids are not likely to get shot unless they're involved with youth drug gangs, that's where most of the child gun deaths come from. In France they trade the mass shooting incidents in for truck or bomb attacks.
I tried beeper for a while, but between the bugs, the dubious flow decisions and the unproductive UI, I gave it up.
I really wanted to like it but they have a long way to go.
However, the product concept is good, and all my interactions with the team were excellent, so I think it will be worth checking them out in a year or two to see if they have fixed all those things.
Not as good as Antidote, which I still pay for, but it's more about the UI than anything else.
However, the advice it gives to improve my writing style are underwhelming. I'm sure they are useful for people that don't write often, but if you do, you have developed a sense of the quirks you can get away with, and it's part of your identity.
Is Antidote the best checker out there? I’m guilty of having a lot of typos as I usually write my thoughts quickly, it would help to have a second hand there.
The old version, antidote 9, used to work offline, so I keep it religiously in my hard drive to work in a plane or on things under NDA. Integration with 3rd party doesn't work anymore, but the stand alone spell checker works.
After that (currently running 11), it's all in the cloud, and open a web browser page every time, and you get the privilege to pay a recurring contract on top of that.
Now I get why they are doing this, it's hard to make a living selling software, but it's clearly a downgrade.
However, it's still worth it to me, especially for professional documents or articles on https://bitecode.dev
However, jsonptr is even faster and also runs in a self-imposed SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT sandbox (very secure; also implies no dynamically allocated memory).
$ time cat citylots.json | jq -cM .features[10000].properties.LOT_NUM
"091"
real 0m4.844s
$ time cat citylots.json | jj -r features.10000.properties.LOT_NUM
"091"
real 0m0.210s
$ time cat citylots.json | jsonptr -q=/features/10000/properties/LOT_NUM
"091"
real 0m0.040s
Looks neat. One suggestion: add better build instructions on wuffs readme/getting started guide. I jumped in and tried to build it using the "build-all.sh" script that seemed convenient, but gave up (for now) after nth build failure due yet another missing dependency. It's extra painful because the build-all.sh is slow, so maybe also consider some proper build automation tool (seeing this is goog project, maybe bazel?)?
Thanks for the feedback. I'll add better build instructions.
If you just want the jsonptr program, instead of everything in the repo (the Wuffs compiler (written in Go), the Wuffs standard library (written in Wuffs), tests and benchmarks (written in C/C++), etc) then you can use "build-example.sh" instead of "build-all.sh".
./build-example.sh example/jsonptr
For example/jsonptr, that should work "out of the box", with no dependencies required (other than a C++ compiler). For e.g. example/sdl-imageviewer, you'll also need the SDL library.
Alternatively, you could just invoke g++ directly, as described at the very top of the "More details are at [link]" page in the grand-parent comment.
This is different. If you learn enough about Linux, you can install Arch in 15-20minutes no problem. Especially since learning about Linux means reinstalling your OS many times until you finally learn how to keep it clean and rescue it from any situation.
You are not going to be able to cook chicken in 3-4minutes per side like so many recipes claim. It's just not possible to have a good outside temperature and a good inside temperature no matter how you cook it if you only have that amount of time. They're lying to make it seem easier and to get more clicks on their recipes.
You simply aren't going to speed up the chemical reactions that happen during cooking. Even if you do find a way, your result will often be different or the result of using ready-made ingredients at the store. (I can buy frozen caramelized onions, for example).
it also depends on the cut and what you cook too. If you only stir-fry chickens that has been diced small with high heat, (I think?) you can achieve it 3-4 minutes, however that requires extreme precision and I think also require good utensils with precise heating. Cooking it longer, ex 7-8 minutes with lower heat usually bring better result and far easier.
Deep-fry or boiling? I'm unsure. Steaming one? Surely you can't
> You are not going to be able to cook chicken in 3-4minutes per side like so many recipes claim. It's just not possible to have a good outside temperature and a good inside temperature no matter how you cook it if you only have that amount of time. They're lying to make it seem easier and to get more clicks on their recipes.
Some of this is probably a difference between home and commercial kitchen equipment.
I know my stove doesn't have the same kind of heat output that a commercial stove would, let alone specialty equipment like pizza ovens or wok burners. And lots of home range hoods are awful for ventilation, which makes it even more impractical to cook at a high heat.
It's not just about the heat output, although that does make a difference (cooking edit: thin* steak on a weak electric stove is hell). There is no amount of heat that will penetrate the inner part of the chicken while not burning the outside cooking only 3-4 minutes per side (unless you reduce the thickness of the chicken via butterflying, as another commenter pointed out, but you don't want to always to do that).
I'm mostly thinking outside the scope of just this one example. Even good recipes have a lot of variability in cooking time. The differences between how hot people cook at home and how hot they cook in commercial spaces is one of the ones that's hardest to control for (unless you want to remodel your kitchen...)
OK, I'll admit butterflied chicken can be cooked that quickly. But basically all other forms of chicken take longer. For curry for example, even though I cut it into small pieces and it could be cooked only 8 minutes since you're going to cook it in the paste later, it's just not going to brown properly and the flavour is not going to be as good. Normal breasts or thighs take longer as well.
It's been a while since I made a meat-based curry (vegetarian now), but from when I was cooking with meat regularly there were a few things that helped hugely with that - hot pan (common theme, heh), and cooking in batches/not overcrowding the pan. You _definitely_ can't brown chicken for 6 portions of curry in one pan in 6-8 minutes, but you _can_ brown it in 2 (maybe 3) batches in 6 minutes per-batch.
Honestly though, by the time you're accurately gauging browning vs cooking meat, and eyeballing batch size vs pan size, you've moved well past the point of relying on cooking times from recipes.
Preheating the pan is part of the cooking time, IMO. In your recipe I would heat my pan for a good 3-4 mins to be sure the temp stays high after the chicken goes in.
I don't agree, in the same way that preheating an oven isn't considered part of the cooking time, or vegetable prep isn't considered part of the cooking time.
Fair enough. We have our opinions. For me the cooking time starts when I enter the kitchen and finishes when I serve the meal. It's the time I spent cooking the meal.
Your thinking is what enabled a generation of '20 minute meal' recipe books that actually take closer to 40 mins.
It's impossible to give an accurate estimate unless you're starting from the same place (and even then it's hard to give an accurate estimate when you're starting from the same place - how long does it take a pot of water to boil?)
My parents are an absoulte disaster for organising their kitchen, they have a fridge that is absolutely _rammed_ full with no order whatsoever, and a single pantry cupboard that contains cereals, vinegars, and everything else in one. On the contrary, my kitchen is organised very loosely by meal, while still structured and categorised. I can dice/slice veg for a full meal in the length of time it takes my partner to get the ingredients out of the fridge.
> Your thinking is what enabled a generation of '20 minute meal' recipe books that actually take closer to 40 mins.
Nah, that's just people lying about cooking times, like "caramelize the onions" in 3 minutes, and not measuring how long it actually took them to do the recipe.
I don’t think any chef (or recipe author) would agree with you. If only because they have preheating pans all the time.
Also the actual pan matters, if you have a thick-bottomed cast iron pan that’s been fully preheated it might not even notice that you dropped produce on, whereas a thin teflon-coated aluminium pan will drop through the floor.
An other huge factor is overcrowding, especially pans.
Just FYI you can easily cook a room temp chicken breast or thigh (or lots of them) 4 minutes a side directly below a broiler on a broiler pan, letting them rest covered for 5 afterwards.
Add a minute for the genetic freak 2+ inch thick ones.
You will need to pat the moisture off them first and brush with oil.
You may have changed the color of the meat and killed off the bacteria to make it safe to eat, but you didn't make good chicken. It takes time and lower heat to cook through, create good flavor, and get good texture. Sure you can put any food in an incinerator for 2 minutes and it's "cooked", but not really.
> It takes time and lower heat to cook through, create good flavor, and get good texture.
This is true of dark meat like chicken thighs, but chicken breast is the exact opposite. Cooking at slowly at low (but still conventional stove or oven temperatures) will give you either juicy chicken with little to no browning or dried out chicken with sufficient browning. A chicken breast is like a single-serving steak - it requires fast cooking (although not as fast as a thin steak) to achieve proper browning without overcooking the interior.
The exception is non-conventional very slow methods like sous vide where the the meat is cooked for over an hour in a medium that is more or less the target temperature of the interior of the meat. Although this provides no browning so you'll still want to sear it very quickly over high heat.
By butchering the breast so that it's very thin and cooking it 90% on one side you can get delicious browning and juicy meat genuinely in under 5 minutes. It's a pretty great hack.
How do your want to define cooked then? cooked != tasty
it just means it's no longer pink and will kill you with salmonella inside. Doesn't mean it's not dry or bland or any other implications
Well, if we're getting into semantics we could maybe say cooked vs prepared, I'm not sure. There's obvious physical differences between burnt onions and caramelized onions. Similarly, there's obvious physical differences between scorched, dry, but safe to eat chicken, and chicken that has been prepared properly and is tender and juicy. In the context of this thread, we've been talking about cooking things as part of recipes, so the end result and quality is obviously important.
> They're lying to make it seem easier and to get more clicks on their recipes.
Doesn't make sense to me. I certainly don't choose a recipe based on the estimated time-to-complete.
In fact I generally click through a bunch of recipes, and pick and choose the ideas that sound as if they'll work. Felicity Cloake does this, in her "How to cook the perfect..." series. She consults a bunch of top cookbooks, tries several mash-ups, and feeds the results to a tasting panel. At least, that's what she says she does; I'm inclined to believe her.
Does make sense to me. I don’t want to combine recipes rely on my creative cooking skills, because I don’t have those skills.
If I want to make a certain dish I look for recipes, pick one and follow that. If a recipe takes 2 hours to prepare and I don’t want to spend 2 hours in the kitchen, I pick something that doesn’t take as much time.
I would be surprised if that isn’t the way most people use recipes.
But I usually pick a recipe from a cook book I own. Searching for recipes online is a shitty experience.
Not familiar with Felicity Cloake, but as a non-professional home-cooking enthusiast, mash-ups are my go-to when I'm trying new recipes that I'm pulling from online. Results are usually pretty good! Did a Greek pasta salad a couple nights ago that turned out really nicely.
Have been thinking about signing up for, or self-hosting some kind of recipe app to make managing it easier... as-is, I have a "recipes" bookmark folder, where each recipe gets a sub-folder with a bookmark for each referenced recipe. However, this approach suffers from linkrot, recipes are often poorly formatted, and it doesn't have anywhere for my notes to go.
True, in this extreme version that goes clearly against the laws of physics.
But without going there, I can clearly hear my mother answering me that once again "it's very simple honey, 20 minutes top", when asked how she did the lunch.
She consistently does this, yet when I copy everything she does, I'm lucky to get 40 minutes.
> Especially since learning about Linux means reinstalling your OS many times until you finally learn how to keep it clean and rescue it from any situation.
Surely, you are dramatizing a bit here. Or are you assuming that everyone shares the same need to fiddle with everything?
Are you trying to actually learn Linux or just how to use Linux to get other work done. Learning how to use Linux to get work done doesn't require a 'need to fiddle' as you put it, but you're not going to really learn actual Linux (as in how the kernel and core operating system works and hangs together) without getting your hands dirty and breaking a lot of things along the way.
Yes, but do you actually need to know that? I know that, I've been using Linux since the whole thing fitted on four 1.44MB floppies. I don't *care* though, and if my machine is fatally screwed up I just bust out the latest Ubuntu LTS, flatten, and reinstall.
I haven't got time to muck about with rescuing a broken system. I've got stuff to do.
Do you actually need to know JavaScript? Or C? Or Japanese?
As I said, if Linux is just the OS you use to do something else, then no. If your job/hobby is to actually develop Linux or tools that tie very tightly to Linux and how Linux operates, then yes.
No, just personal experience. I started learning Linux as a young teenager and have broken dozens of installations (breaking system python, deleting /usr/ via rsync, doing an incomplete system update, writing a love letter to my boot sector, etc. etc.)
Eventually I have failed in so many ways that there are not a lot of ways I can fail now that I don't know how to rescue myself from. Also I've learned what not do to keep things saveable.
> Or are you assuming that everyone shares the same need to fiddle with everything?
Why else would you use Linux? This fiddling is literally necessary to learn it. Otherwise you have to ask somebody else for help, who has done the fiddling.
Because you just want to get work done, or play your game or browse the web etc?
Yes, learning Linux is fun (for the kind of people who find this fun). But we don't expect people who just want to get on with their lives to eg break Windows or MacOS a lot, either.
I'm pretty close to this at work since about 1/3rd of my job is helping the non-Linux people deal with Linux. Programming is their 2nd language so to speak, and the use of Linux is incidental, it's just what's easiest to give them to keep everything in our company compatible.
They require a person who knows Linux in order to keep working. It's not optional -- they just wouldn't be able to get everything running otherwise without it breaking every couple of days. The fixes they find without us usually end up masking the problem and causing a truly unfixable problem later.
This is one of the biggest flaws of Linux IMO -- you have to dedicate yourself to learning it to be able to use it as a daily driver effectively.
So: if you don't have to, and you don't know how, you shouldn't use Linux at all. There's no point, just use macOS. The macOS people eventually fix their problem on their own anyway since it's so standardized.
I once logged into a ONE HOUR OLD ubuntu install for it to randomly decide that my system font should be 6pt, but not everywhere, and there was no way to change it through any settings panel. Not knowing in what magical text file that setting, if it even had one, was hidden, my only choice was to reinstall.
I guess Arch Linux is a lot saner, they just have one place to change things: the configuration files; and that one place is well documented and there's no magic going on. No weird settings panels that try to be smart.
That's interesting. Did either Ubuntu or Arch Linux patch GNOME to read configuration at different places? Doesn't Ubuntu also have configuration files that actually store the configuration (while the settings panel would be just the UI to the config files)?
At any rate, how are you sure that this bug only affects Ubuntu but not Arch?
I don't use GNOME, so I can't comment. I just use XMonad as a light weight window manager, and don't bother with any 'desktop environment'.
I don't know how Ubuntu nor GNOME store their configuration. I suspect they have lots of plain text config files, but they might also have other formats like databases etc? I think the more important part is that they try to 'magically' do much of the config for you, and sometimes that magic breaks.
I found 'etckeeper' quite useful, it sticks your /etc in a git repository and makes commits when something changes. So you can at least review what just changed that must have broken your config. (I use etckeeper on Arch, but it seems to be also available on Ubuntu.)
> Especially since learning about Linux means reinstalling your OS many times until you finally learn how to keep it clean and rescue it from any situation.
People bother to do that?
Just wipe, reinstall, and run your postinst scripts to restore everything you need.
Python packaging is a special kind of dependency hell, you get the feeling that forward compatibility is an unknown idea and everything depends on the precise version of anything else. Last time I checked, some of the most popular packages hadn’t even been ported yet to a stable Python release that was six months old at the time, forcing me to downgrade. It’s essentially the most unpythonic aspect of working in Python: a zillion incompatible ways to do things, and nothing works out of the box.
They might differ on what's a problem, too. I've installed arch a few times, and there were some things I had to do, but I wouldn't say I had problems. It was generally a pretty enjoyable experience.
It isn't, and this is partly why this kind of price-gouging can go on. Company x, sees a rise of say 5 percent in material cost, 5 percent in labor cost, they raise retail prices 25 percent.
Usually last names only are used by journalists after the first time. Therefore you see one name it's usually the last name with no title. The exception is VERY famous people with unique first names like Oprah, Elon, LeBron.
I suspect the reason people say "Bill" and "Tim" is because these companies have 100K+ employees for whom using their first name is the norm and expected (for example would be weird to watch management use anything else with each other at all hands meetings), and they do it in public too, so other people on the tech internet do it too.
I just took it from guy's domain without bothering to learn his full name. Is knowing or not knowing him some kind of internet meme or what? If not MS' predatory global OEM practices I wouldn't know "Bill" either, unfortunately I do.
Cool places in California have all been gentrified to the point they lost what made them special- the people and places and events.
So now they have all decided to move to Austin to do the same there.
We used to say 'keep austin weird', but last I was there (and this was back in 2018 or so) I was working on the new high-rises downtown.
Prices at local hotspots were insane, scooters running pedestrians off the sidewalks, 6th street on weekends was just a different kind of crowd (techbros). Rent was through the roof (the high rise we worked on had a rooftop pool, rooftop parking, etc) but place was already booked full.
Back then the number of California plates was huge and growing daily, as did the number of homeless and displaced. I knew a crew who moved to San Antonio and surrounding areas, hours away, because with increased commute and gas prices it was still cheaper than renting anywhere in Austin.
It literally is starting to look like San Francisco, where you have all these luxury condos/apts downtown and they are surrounded by homeless people everywhere.
You have so many decisions to make that need you to evaluate how much is something: shopping, working, cooking, driving, voting, reading the news... If you have to get your phone out of your pocket every time you need to decide something, this gets you out of the flow.
