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

Not sure Stonehenge qualifies as "niche". Anyway ...

If you're ever visiting the Lake District, NW England, I recommend the unexpectedly interesting Pencil Museum in Keswick. Graphite was first mined nearby and when it was realised it could be used for pencils, it became extremely valuable, requiring armed guards for its transportation. Thus Keswick claims to be the birthplace of the modern pencil.


I mainly define "Niche" as "I get to define what Niche is and put things I like on my website".

Stonehenge is probably the most mainstream thing on there, but I don't think most people visiting know to look out for the rooks!


Call it `chatctl` and give it a CLI.

I love that HN contributions include articles like this, and those about pure science & nature too. They're such a breath of fresh air among the endless AI discussions. People sometimes say they shouldn't be on here. I say they contribute to overall human understanding and are therefore just as relevant as the tech news.

Definitely, >50% reason why I come here, pretty tired from ie endless tirades how recent build of llm is next fire or wheel invention. Also, comments section (sans typical comments why its here which usually get downvoted fast) is often source of new interesting knowledge to me.


There's a stat I think quoted in "Code Complete" by McConnell that says the number of bugs in a system strongly correlates with the number of coders. The conclusion is that as the # of coders goes up, the # of lines of communication between them grows exponentially, and it's the lines of (mis)communication that lead to bugs.

This:

1. explains Brooks' assertion that adding coders to a late project makes it later

2. emphasises the importance in clearly defining interfaces between components, interfaces being the "paths of communication" between the coders of those components.

So your assertion is well founded.


> now

The idea is about 10 years old. At least that's when I first heard about it, with relation to RSS. It may go back earlier.

Edit: confirmed by the "See Also" section at the end of TFA.


At least the BBC has RSS feeds for its stories, which avoids having to go through the dire news front page.

Most news sites have RSS feeds. CNN is the major exception.

You wouldn't know they had no history of leaving their local area unless you interviewed them.

Why does not the investigator have to supply some sort of evidence that she has a history of leaving their local area rather than putting the onus on the accused? This line of argument is halfway to "guilty until proven otherwise".

You and the GP that replied to me are way overstating what it means to be a "suspect". It just means the police are investigating you and consider it a possibility you've committed the crime. On its own, is not a sufficient status to search your home, subpoena your ISP, or arrest you - all of those things require a much higher burden of evidence, and oftena third party (judge's) approval. People routinely become "suspects" on much flimsier evidence than an unreliable software match - if I call in an anonymous tip that I saw you acting suspicious near the crime scene, you will probably become a suspect.

If you'd like, you can replace the term "suspect" in my post with "person of interest", which colloquially implies a lot less suspicion but isn't practically any different in terms of how the police interacts with you.


A populist far-right racist would fix all the potholes and bring HS2 in under budget? Got it.


You don't understand the core issue at heart in Britain.

The real distraction is the economic argument. The truth of the matter is natives feel like a stranger in their own country. I say this as someone who is mixed race and 2nd gen before you try and label me a racist. Yawn.


You need to change your social media algorithm.

On the other hand, the process of having Commons legislation rejected by the Lords, then amended and sent back can take almost a year. A government looking to push its legislative programme in a single parliament may choose to remove the most controversial elements in return for an easier passage through the Lords. In this way, just the threat of Lords scrutiny can be enough to moderate the output of the Commons.


If the Lords can’t veto bills, why does their rejection matter?

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

Search: