Feels so fresh to hear their CEO talk so openly and transparently of all the flaws their products still have. Sounds like he's someone very fun to work with.
Nirav from Framework is similar, he speaks openly about compromises they make with their designs and why they make them.
When leaders are both technical and open about these sorts of things it makes me feel like I can trust that they are invested in supporting and improving their products.
The failure rate waving is quite a stretch though. If you take into account reporting rates and time (since most people do not have the watch for long) I'm quite concerned. And I own a PT2. The "look big number, it's not a problem" does not translate to actual sensible failure rates.
To be clear: 51 broken screens in less than two months results in a yearly failure rate of over 1% which is find quite high for a watch.
The fact that he's putting his money where his mouth is (replacing all broken screen PT2s for the foreseeable future) is what gives me confidence that the rate is very low, even if his number is not quite right for the reasons you indicate.
Yeah it's true, Europe has had heat waves in the past. For instance, in 1540. Also 1779. And also 1906, 1947, 1964, 1976, 2003, 2006, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.
I have not read that article, but I was aware Arrhenius calculated the effects of CO2 on global temperatures earlier. AFAIK his models has held up very well, possibly because of its simplicity compared to current models (I tend to distrust complex models).
These are 20 year periods, not decades. How did you think there were 13 years in the previous decade? It would be 18 vs 13 if every year up to 2039 went over 30C.
Why don't you research past heat waves? We're literally setting new heat records nearly every year. This year the heat record in Germany went from 39 degrees to 42. We're even setting night time heat records because of how bad it is. I don't understand the impulse to ignore what we're experiencing right now. What do you gain by sticking your head in the sand?
Ask your grandparents about "Die große Dürre 1947" in Germany. Near entirely dried-up rivers and reservoirs, lakes three meters below normal, roughly half a million cattle emergency-slaughtered in Bavaria, hydroelectric shutdowns forcing power rationing, and forest fires along the Bavarian–Austrian border.
Sure we have an all time high now, but currently there's still too much water as one could stick their head into the soil of the Elbe and Rhine.
That used to be once in a lifetime event. Now we have temperatures like that two or three times every decade and soon it's going to be a normal summer temperature.
Being proud of your culture including your language and exercising it, at the risk of readers not understanding everything immediately, is not racism. In the worst case, a non-British gets curious about one expression or the other and looks it up. That's engagement.
It's funny, and perhaps not entirely unwarranted, that "racism" pops up here?
As a Black American, I find the author's idea extremely interesting and naturally began to wonder -- what might this idea (in code?) look like for us?
Owing to history and whatnot, the role "Black American English" might play is of course very much a moving target, but it's interesting to think about.
As a writer and amateur linguist I can always spot the people who don’t understand how AAVE works because they seem to think that it’s just “bad grammar” and don’t realize that it does in fact have its own grammatical rules. One that’s not exclusive to AAVE, but is common across most informal spoken English in the US (maybe beyond—I know there’s at least one Genesis song that uses this which suggests it may exist in informal British spoken grammar), is the use of the oblique case when a subject has two or more elements joined by and: “Steve and him went to the store” insted of “He and Steve went to the store.” (Ordering is also subject to different ordering with formal English dictating that the first person pronoun comes last, but informal English putting it first: “Me and him” vs “He and I.”
The other thing I find interesting is that formal English has eschewed the double negative as an intensifier while most (all?) other Indo-European languages employ it. Compare Spanish “No veo nadie” (literally ”I don’t see nobody“ which is the informal English formulation) to English “I don’t see anybody.”
Is there an internationally agreed upon standard for designating AAV? I suppose it's a large and influential enough dialect it wouldn't hurt to have one
The main people who'd want such a thing would be linguists, so that they can label samples.
The non-prestige dialects of a language don't usually attract official interest, not least because officially the people who understand that dialect could also understand a prestige variant. Scousers may not talk like King Charles among themselves, but if he speaks they're not confused about what the King is saying even if they wouldn't use those words or say them that way.
This might get sketchier for Chinese topolects where the official government policy is that China has a single language, "Standard Chinese" but, those topolects sure do seem like different languages if you didn't know about the policy. However AAV is nowhere close to that, I can't imagine that anybody who uses AAV normally watches "Last Week Tonight" and goes "That guy is speaking a completely unrecognisable language, are there subtitles?".
In fairness, I think that's partly because AAV doesn't have the political and national identity that some other similar dialects have. I (as a lay person with no training in linguistics) feel like AAV and Scots are similar in terms of how far away from English they are, and many people would describe Scots as its own language, distinct from English.
Scots is complicated because there was an entirely distinct language "Gaelic" which just isn't even close to English at all, spoken in that geographic area historically. Now, today there aren't very many people who live there who would even claim to actually speak Gaelic, but the influence of that language seeped into the dialect spoken there, so while the random bloke you meet in Scotland may not speak any Gaelic, if you (maybe as an academic study) know Gaelic some of the vocabulary of their speech is obviously from Gaelic, not English.
Linguists would tell you that Scots is a sibling to English rather than just a dialect of English, having both descended from Middle English and that the dialect of English people in Scotland speak is instead "Scottish English". In practice of course humans don't language tag their speech (indeed they rarely even language tag written text) so it's murky. Maybe one word in ten that a Scottish bloke just said to confuse a tourist was technically Scots not Scottish English and perhaps some of it was even Gaelic. The important thing was that they confused the tourist as desired, for which frankly even an inside joke would work.
Sociolects are fun. In one of my friend circles the word "fish" is understood to mean the controller for a video game, I don't know why exactly, but if you said to one of us "Pass the fish" they'd hand you a controller without even seeming puzzled, that's just obviously what you'd call it. But in another circle it means nothing and you'd be greeted with confusion.
You misunderstand the region. Gaelic arrived in Scotland as a medieval import from Ireland, and it never extended far enough south to affect Scots overall. The literature on English historical linguistics emphasizes far more the impact of Old Norse on Scots, as the Scots-speaking region was Norse-ruled for some time.
But I think that national identity doesn't exist in the same way, do you know what I mean? Like, being Black/African American in the US is an important part of a person's identity, but it doesn't necessarily have the trappings of nationhood in the same way that Scottish identity does. That's not to say that the identity is any weaker, just that it manifests itself differently.
This means that AAV is culturally important, but there's not necessarily the same sense of "this is a separate language" that there is with Scots, even though in many ways it has all the same claims of being one.
Right, I think the major thing that both of you are unwittingly dancing around is the extent to which AAV is generally "popular," almost subconsciously. Especially in the US, but I'd argue the whole world.
It would be exceedingly difficult to strongly distinguish it from "Gen Whatever Slang" or "US Slang" or a lot of "LGTBQ Slang" etc etc. The list goes on.
Not really, no. AAV isn't just a form of slang, it has distinct and measurable grammatical differences from standard American English, such as its own verb tense, or a requirement for negative concord. You can measure these sorts of features quite clearly, and they are distinct from slang.
I don't think it's nationalism per se, more just a national identity. You see independence movements across Europe (Catalan, Wales, Cornwall, some of these have more realistic prospects than others) that tightly bind the idea of nationhood to a collective language - we are all one people because we all speak the same language. And similarly, when larger countries want to suppress these independence movements, cracking down on their ability to learn or even speak that language is often a key tool used to do that.
I have an amateur interest in linguistics, that's partially why I asked.
>That guy is speaking a completely unrecognisable language, are there subtitles?
Interestingly enough, I remember reading somewhere that you could be legally entitled to an interpreter in a court setting (take that with a grain of salt, I forget where I read it)
The article strongly implies it is a response to a comment complaining the blog is not inclusive because it uses British English.
There is a constant American assumption that their language and culture is the norm and we should all adjust our language to fit their definitions and culture. I intend to keep eating faggots, having a master branch in git, etc.
> There is a constant American assumption that their language and culture is the norm
You write it like it is a moral flaw in American culture. This cultural phenom isn't special to the United States. In my personal experience, any country with a large population suffers from the same: Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, India, China, etc.
> having a master branch in git
This is a weird cultural battle to pick. In the 2010s, when renaming the git master branch was at its cultural zeitgeist, none of the Americans that I worked with did the rename. It was always someone not from the US who would raise the issue on a team call. It happened so many times that I asked a few of them why they did it. Almost all of them told the same rough story: They say a "nerd news story" about the trend, then did a little bit of reading on Wiki to learn about the cruel history of slavery in the United States. Motivated by this, they decided to do the rename. All in all, pretty wholesome stuff. Never once was it some weird social justice warrior type of bullcrap. But anyway, you do you: Keep rockin' the "master" branch in git.
"There is a constant American assumption that their language and culture is the norm"
This is now far more than an American assumption. I have seen younger continental Europeans bristle at UK English because they grew up in a world of social media that is converging on usage that is closer to US English.
Real question: Post 2010, are there any non-English speaking nations that get most of their English language media from the UK? Since everthing went online after 2010, I assume US has the highest influence (linguistically) only because of "mass". Dear UK readers: Please don't interpret my comment that UK language culture is somehow inferior. HN knows and loves UK humor!
When I read "inclusive", my mind jumped to accessibility, in that colloquialisms can be difficult to understand for a subset of people with autism (and other conditions), and also that they translate poorly when run through a translator, for those that do not speak English at all.
4.3 Limited Use Nonce Values
The Digest scheme uses a server-specified nonce to seed the
generation of the request-digest value (as specified in section
3.2.2.1 above). As shown in the example nonce in section 3.2.1, the
server is free to construct the nonce such that it may only be used
from a particular client, for a particular resource, for a limited
period of time or number of uses, or any other restrictions. Doing
so strengthens the protection provided against, for example, replay
attacks (see 4.5). However, it should be noted that the method
chosen for generating and checking the nonce also has performance and
resource implications. For example, a server may choose to allow
each nonce value to be used only once by maintaining a record of
whether or not each recently issued nonce has been returned and
sending a next-nonce directive in the Authentication-Info header
field of every response. This protects against even an immediate
replay attack, but has a high cost checking nonce values, and perhaps
more important will cause authentication failures for any pipelined
requests (presumably returning a stale nonce indication). Similarly,
incorporating a request-specific element such as the Etag value for a
resource limits the use of the nonce to that version of the resource
and also defeats pipelining. Thus it may be useful to do so for
methods with side effects but have unacceptable performance for those
that do not.
That third word, starting with 'n' is British slang, which you are welcome to look up.
Presumably the etymology was in place before it took on its present meaning, but it is not a word I would use in a professional context.
My comment was oblique, but not sarcastic. Partly because I didn't want to use the word directly, and partly in keeping with the tone of the original blog post!
In British slang, "nonce" is a highly offensive term for a sex offender, particularly one who has harmed children. It is considered derogatory and should be used with caution.
I'm guessing this is very context/region dependant. Calling someone a nonce as a bit of banter would be more acceptable than calling them a paedophile when I was growing up. I assume because using the officially recognised term made your accusations seem more ernest, though I've never actually thought much about it before.
I agree, but some people seem to think it is, which i think what the article is a response to: just just in the comment, but in the wider push to use certain language.
With the USA and Israel tightening their intelligence agencies / secret service exchange, and now pulling in OpenAI -- that's a very effective strategy to exercise more worldly dominance
You're ignorant for claiming that being able to separate political opinion from creating good products (and standing for privacy) is ignorant. And you're proud of it.
Haters will now say that the far right will destroy exactly that: "our" democracy. The Western morality is a joke, and many HN readers comment like an infant. I feel ashamed.
But everyone has such budgets, so you could easily argue there's an attempt to revise history in both directions. And I can assure you the sum of the Chinese, Russian, Iranian and gulf budgets far surpass that of Israel's.
Conspiracies are always possible, but also keep in mind that parking a ship in the middle of a war zone is always a bad idea. In modern conflicts, significant casualities come from friendly fire incidents. If armies cant even consistently not accidentally target their own troops, it seems entirely plausible they accidentally hit a neutral ship hanging out in the middle of a war zone.
I think the biggest issue with this conspiracy theory is why Israel would want to take out the liberty? It seems like the events would be strongly detrimental to Israeli interests. Nobody has really come up with a compelling motive, which suggests to me the most likely scenario is accident/miscommunication.
Why self-censoring for using "hate" when it gets the message across quickly? Everyone understands that we use "hate" and "love" with huge levels of nuances. I personally said today to a colleague "I hate working from home" but it's clear that I'm not a racist against people who "love" remote work. We do work with a very lax work-from-philosophy.
from my perspective--I have to use React, Lit, and all kinds of other creative solutions at my day job--I'm going to immediately devalue someone's argument if it starts with "I hate React".
React is not popular simply because engineers hate themselves or enjoy pain. There are problems it solves, and problems it creates. Explain what problems your solution solves, and feel free to dunk on React while you're at it, but write a tagline like this and I'm not gonna take you seriously.
View triggers an event -> Controller receives event, updating the model as it sees fit -> Controller calls render to update views
Model knows nothing about controller or views, so they're independently testable. Models and views are composed of a tree of entities (model) and components (views). Controller is the glue. Also, API calls are done by the controller.
So it is more of an Entity-Boundary-Control pattern.
From what I can tell, they do full page reloads when visiting a different page, and use Preact for building UIs using components. Those components and pages then get rendered on the server as typical template engines.
