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

Dare we not look to Android.

goto fail was relevant in 2014 - perhaps not the most useful point in 2026.


Perhaps the prompts you are using could do with some love. We're pretty consistently getting great results up to and beyond the 10 minute mark in a large monorepo.

We tend to use Opus 4.6 High and GPT 5.4 High.


Popular in tech circles, but largely unused outside them.


Not even in "tech circles". Anecdotally, most of my colleagues -- mostly software engineers -- don't use adblocker at home or at work. It hurts my eye to see their screens. But they don't care.

(The workspace does not disallow adblocker extensions.)


Have a look through the rest of the images. TMPI has some pretty obvious shortcomings in a lot of them.

1. Sky looks jank 2. Blurry/warped behind the horse 3. The head seems to move a lot more than the body. You could argue that this one is desirable 4. Bit of warping and ghosting around the edges of the flowers. Particularly noticeable towards the top of the image. 5. Very minor but the flowers move as if they aren't attached to the wall


Did you uhhhh read any of the announcement, or just jump straight to writing this comment?

The 17 Air reports 27 hours of video playback - the same as the 16 Pro.


Did you read my comment? I did not say the iPhone Air has 2 hours of battery life. I said previous apple products that had the "Air" name were "less capable." I was wondering aloud why a company would apply this sobriquet to a new product, regardless of it's capabilities.


Ah, fair enough! I read this as saying almost exactly that, but yeah, I get what you mean.

> but not appropriate for a mobile phone that you may want to operate untethered for hours at a time.

I do think this shifted a little when the first M1 Air came out. Anecdotally, many now associate it with being more than capable unless you’re an actual professional.


> In ensuing decades, high altitude electrical discharges were reported by aircraft pilots and discounted by meteorologists until the first direct visual evidence was documented in 1989.

From your link.


[flagged]


It was in response to your original, unedited comment: "Pretty well understood" or something to that effect.

My point is that discounting historical accounts with a link to current information is neither particularly useful nor interesting.

IMO it is much more interesting to understand how our understanding has changed over time.


The link also contains information of the history of the current understanding? And is a direct summary of current understanding? I guess that contains your constraints for an interesting article (as it includes historical and current references that cover said history). So, what am I missing?

Also, I didn't edit the main premise of the comment, as it still contains the phrase "Pretty well understood today", unedited, but whatever.

EDIT: I have now removed that phrase as my comment was flagged. I mean, "fuck off" to whoever did that. My original comment had "Pretty well understood today" with the wikpedia link.

Stupid shit, imo

Community here continually becomes less "don't be a dick" from 2009 and more "fuck you, toe the line"


> Community here continually becomes less "don't be a dick" from 2009 and more "fuck you, toe the line"

No idea what this conversation is about in general, but these two statements you contrast here are identical. It's just with different values.


Looks like it would be in their interest to do so, so yeah I don’t see why not.


There are many things that would be in Apple's interest to do, but they aren't so that's a complete non-argument.

I think it's a very valid question to ask, as many open source projects I've seen in the past that had to interface with Apple on the developer tooling front had to go through constant pain, as Apple isn't willing to e.g. provide references for certain .plist files, forcing many project to try and reverse-engineer what they do. More precisely there are usually people inside Apple willing to do that, but incapable to do that due to internal structures that result in a lack of clearly defined ownership.

So given that, I would say that if/once the original contributor of this PR moves on(/is made to move on) from that project, there is a good chance that this would also mark the end of cooperation from Apple's side.


Meta analysis of the various studies (74 of them from a large range of countries):

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...



Projects breaking so frequently on npm and node is simply not the case unless you are trying upgrade an old project, one dependency per day…


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

Search: