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

A minor thing, but adding the non-image version is a really nice touch!

Great article, thanks.


And as a global ecological cost, it's pretty huge.


I've been looking for a tool like this for ages! Are there plans to support the UK? All that happens is I get the "Something went wrong" message currently.


Thanks for the input! I'll look into this.


Agreed. TurboLinks itself seems unnecessarily heavy. So you avoid a full page reload, but you do still have to fetch the whole page over the network and render it. Just without the browser loading icon spinning.


Well, you can use data-turbolinks-permanent to prevent turbolinks from trashing a dom subtree, so that lightens it up a bit. Its also often paired with caching so that big chunks of the page are pulled from the cache so you can often do a sub 300ms refresh of the page with turbolinks while working well on slow mobile connections that choke on large js bundles.

It is complex in its own way though, so there's no free lunch here.


Is perceived latency for the user lower?


I believe you give a physical signature and its compared to what's on the back of the card.


It is never, ever compared in the US. In fact, I haven't signed the back of a credit card in years, and the only time I did was when I was in Europe where every cashier thinks they're a forensic handwriting specialist.


Not in the US.

For most terminals the small screen is actually a touch screen that (in the US) has a stylus attached to sign with.

However as you would expect, the signature is completely worthless and basically everyone signs with a simple scribble.


I draw little pictures for the cashiers at a store I frequent.


Most likely this. I'm not sure why card readers in Germany don't ask for the PIN every time but when they don't you're generally asked to sign the cashier's copy of the receipt and they'll verify the signature against what's on the card.

However not only will the cashier generally let you simply put the card next to the receipt while you sign (because this makes verification easier for them) but it doesn't seem like they actually apply any scrutiny: the signature on my card is very different from the one I use for signing these days and it never raised an eyebrow.

FWIW, I've signed for card transactions in all kinds of places across Germany, from small shops to large hotels. I can't figure out what triggers the decision between PIN and signature but I swear I've used either in the same place at different times for equivalent amounts.


The transactions with PIN are more expensive for merchants, but the merchant isn’t liable. They are done via the EC network.

The transactions with signature have lower fees, but the merchant is liable, and you’re actually authorizing them to do a Bankeinzug via the Elektronisches Lastschriftverfahren.

EC transactions are done instantly, ELV are done overnight.


Why is it that the patent holder doesn't have to make a case with proof of infringment? Would it not make sense that if you want to defend a patent, you should show you've made the effort of documenting how someone is infringing?


How does the UCI enforce a fine? When you race do you have to sign a contract stating that you will pay any penalties, or can the fine be seen as "must be paid before competing again"?


You don't have to pay it, but you won't be racing again. As a former USA Cycling official, I'd occasionally fine riders for infractions (usually $20-50 payable to the youth rider fund). They didn't have to pay it, as I had no enforcement authority outside of bike races. However, if I saw you next week and you hadn't paid the fine, you won't be at the start line. I couldn't make you pay it, but I could prevent you from racing.


She has no fine, only if she wants to cycle again, then she has to pay the fine. The UCI can't force it as she's not a member anymore and the UCI isn't a court


Still getting ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED


Still the same. Waste of time...


Intrestingly it seems that the functional version he proposed is much faster than the OO version. http://jsperf.com/oop-vs-ramda


(Author of that talk (and co-author of Ramda) here. Your perf test only times the parsing of the function -- not exactly fair.


Hey man. Great work.


Fixed for actually running the tests instead of just parsing:

http://jsperf.com/oop-vs-ramda/3

TL;DR: Ramda is somewhat faster than OO one


Fixed for running a proper imperative version instead of the functional-oriented 'imperative' version of the original author:

http://jsperf.com/oop-vs-ramda/4

TL;DR: Imperative is faster than functional. Functional is shorter (33% slower in chromium, 83% slower in firefox), but might be more readable depending on your preferences.


Pardon me if I read it wrong, but you just removed the promises, didn't you?

Anyway, doing the same to the FP version yields almost equal speeds (Chromium):

http://jsperf.com/oop-vs-fp


I removed all the useless promises, yes.

The one remaining is the one after fetchData, which looks like it could be async and make use of a promise.

It only yields equal speeds in chromium (good to know), although if you try in firefox, imperative is still 4 times faster.


Also, you can use String.fromCharCode(95) to write a '_' so that you can access the methods on map that start with an underscore


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

Search: