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

You can tell MacOS was developed by OS nerds but stifled by product managers. There are a lot of gems like Sandboxing and Hyperkit with incredible features and practically no user interface.

Why is not spending resources to develop infrequently-used features that aren't revenue streams "stifling"? Granted, I too would love to have nice UIs for those out of the box, but > 99.9% of Mac users don't care, and 3rd-party developers can pick up the slack and maybe make some money filling the gap.

Wait until you hear about subtree

This is one of gits best features . SSH deploys with offline remote version tracking

GitHub having a connection of ssh public keys is another feature that's really neat. You can give someone access to your server without having to give them a password somehow.

Another nice little "hidden" thing is that you can get people's public keys from just a GitHub username, and be kind of sure it is keys in active use, by doing http://github.com/$username.keys.

Adding access to a new user? `curl https://github.com/embedding-shapes.keys >> /home/user/.ssh/authorized_keys`


this is a really neat trick

Exactly. And it’s great to move code around without having to add keys to GitHub/gitlab. Wherever you have ssh access you can push refs , build and deploy. Great for embedded systems where you may have dozens and you don’t want to add keys to GitHub for each one.

no tool is 100% effective. Archive.today is the best one we've seen

Wikipedia's own page on this topic is much more succinct about the context and change in policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...


> Change the original source to something that doesn't need an archive (e.g., a source that was printed on paper), or for which a link to an archive is only a matter of convenience.

They're basically recommending changing verifiable references that can easily be cross-checked and verified, to "printed on paper" sources that could likely never be verified by any other Wikipedian, and can easily be used to provide a falsification and bias that could go unnoticed for extended periods of time.

Honestly, that's all you need to know about Wikipedia.

The "altered" allegation is also disingenuous. The reason archive.org never works, is precisely because it doesn't alter the pages enough. There's no evidence that archive.today has altered any actual main content they've archived; altering the hidden fields, usernames and paywalls, as well as random presentation elements to make the page look properly, doesn't really count as "altered" in my book, yet that's precisely what the allegation amounts to.


The accusation is not that they alter pages at all -- they obviously need to in order to make some pages readable/functional, bypass paywalls, or hide account names used to do so. The Wayback Machine does something similar with YouTube to make old videos playable.

The allegation here is that they altered page content not just to remove their own alias, but to insert the name of the blogger they were targeting. That moves it from a defensible technical change for accessibility to being part of their bizarre revenge campaign against someone who crossed them.


You should add this context to the talk page. You can do it anonymously without login. I wasn’t aware of either side of this allegation, and it’s helpful to understand this context.

Are there people who just downvote every comment? How is this a bad suggestion? If people want change on WP, they should contribute to the discussion there.

this was referenced as the evidence for archive.today modifying content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

I was disappointed to learn that a human was taking over and not Skynet

I’m an outsider with experience building crawlers. You can get pretty far with residential proxies and browser fingerprint optimization. Most of the b-tier publishers use RBC and heuristics that can be “worked around” with moderate effort.

.. but what about subscription only, paywalled sources?

many publisher's offer "first one's free".

For those that don't , I would guess archive.today is using malware to piggyback off of subscriptions.


This is a good one you should contribute it to git extras.

you can prompt it to stop doing that, and to behave exactly how you need it. my prompts say "no flattery, no follow up questions, PhD level discourse, concise and succinct responses, include grounding, etc"

> PhD level discourse

What is that? Do you think PhDs have some special way of talking about things?



When apps were expensive to build , developers at least had the excuse that they were too busy to build something appealing. Now they can cope by pretending to be an artisanal hand-built software engineer, and still fail at making anything appealing.

If you want to build something beautiful, nothing is stopping you, except your own cynicism.

"AI doesn't build anything original". Then why aren't you proving everyone wrong? Go out there and have it build whatever you want.

AI has not yet rejected any of my prompts by saying I was being too creative. In fact, because I'm spending way less time on mundane tasks, I can focus way more time on creativity , performance, security and the areas that I am embarrassed to have overlooked on previous projects.


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

Search: