For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | zimpenfish's commentsregister

> The only web hosts that regularly provide data faster than [40Mbps] are video game distributors

No? I've been trying to download my MyMiniFactory library[0] and I'm currently getting 25MBps over 5 downloads. A single download will easily do 15MBps.

[0] Which sucks, even at high speed - they have no API, no bulk download, and you're limited to 6 items at a time. I have to click through 1000+ items with easily 5000+ sub-items and individually download each one.


+1 for Mattermost. I set up mine for family but it's ended up mostly being used by my bots for reporting things to various channels via webhooks.

If you were going for a social-media-y experience, I'd not recommend Pleroma (or Akkoma which is the less problematic fork) because dealing with Erlang+Elixir is a massive pain in the arse. You'd want GotoSocial[0] (single binary, reasonably straightforward), snac[1] (haven't tried it but fedimeteo runs a whole bunch of instances successfully), or one of the other small servers (Takahē, bovine, etc.)

[0] https://gotosocial.org

[1] https://codeberg.org/grunfink/snac2


GoToSocial looks interesting, i will probably spin one up to try it out! Still seems a little twitter-like, but worth a shot.

And as long as there is a docker container, i don’t really care what language it’s written in, tbh - tho that is sometimes useful as a signal of the code quality or other aspects


> as long as there is a docker container, i don’t really care what language it’s written in, tbh

That's a good point that I keep forgetting these days.


Heh, I've found this post while installing Gotosocial :D

> I'm sure you can still effectively film them from 1100ft.

But also having to be 3000ft laterally which gives you a distance of about 3160ft which is probably beyond the useful camera range of most consumer drones?


> Wonder why they didn't go for the Z9 which is its modern mirrorless equivalent.

From [0], "The D5 was chosen for its radiation resistance, extreme ISO range (up to 3,280,000), and proven reliability in space." (

[0] https://www.photoworkout.com/artemis-ii-nikon-d5-moon/


> Its a headline, no font, no sizing, no colors... Just a headline. It means that it can be displayed on any device, printed on any paper, work with any accessibility tool and optimized for what ever requirements the reader has, not what ever the writer thought looked good.

God, remember when that was that goal of HTML and the web?

What a beautiful couple of years that was.


IMHO still is. Just don't add any JS or CSS

Problem with that is that the default browser styling is extremely ugly and the ability for custom style sheets was removed from the browser GUI many years ago. ReaderMode and Addons can help, but as long as the default is essentially broken and unsupported that whole approach remains a dead end.

On top of that come issues like the lack of pagination support in browsers, which make long document impossible to read and practically require to add custom UI inside the website itself.

ePub works much better, with readers giving control over line spacing, font size, pagination and proper markup for TOC and other metadata, but despite ePub being based on xHTML, browsers have ignored it (only old Edge supported it for a little while).


No? That has always been a uniquely unreadable language with weird, arbitrary choices.

And on no planet is it human readable without parsing.


That is an unjustified over-generalisation.

HTML markup is pretty readable (except when it becomes soup) and I read and write raw HTML documents all the time. I like it better than markdown.

It's even more readable in a code editor that distiguishes tags from content.


Ask your grandmother to do the same.

On this planet, humans have read HTML without parsing for years. People building their first websites without any significant technical knowledge stole HTML by reading the source of other sites and edited it by hand.

Oh, please. Don't insult everyone here by pretending you actually believe HTML is a human readable format like markdown. It was never designed for that and has never claimed that.

What a rediculous thing to even say.


It is. Humans do read it, and have read it. Like any language it's just a matter of familiarity.

HTML was designed for humans to read and write long before Claude or compiling everything from typescript or whatever, when websites were all written by hand. In text editors. Even if you were using PHP and templates or CGI you wrote that shit by hand, which meant you had to be able to read it and understand it. Even if you were using Dreamweaver, you had to know how to read and write HTML at some point. WYSIWYG only gets you so far.

Is HTML more difficult to read than Markdown? Sure. It is impossible? Not even remotely. Teenagers did it putting together their Geocities websites.

You can be as snarky as you like, but facts are facts.


I'm confused. Are you saying you cannot read an HTML file?

You must be kidding. If you can read BBCode you can read HTML.

I don't think they were appreciating that HTML could be read unrendered. I think they meant that it was up to the browser to render HTML with sensible but unspecified or otherwise user-specified styling (the browser is supposed to be a "user agent", remember?) before web designers started aiming for pixel-perfect control through CSS.

Found a stream on YouTube earlier (which presumably wasn't an official one because it disappeared 15 minutes later after a claim by "FUBO TV") and it had a poll attached: "Will the Artemis astronauts land on the moon?"

40% of people had voted yes. Which is somewhat worrying given the mission plan and hardware.


If these astronauts land on the moon, something has gone seriously, seriously wrong.

Maybe they'll just stop for some pictures on the way back. I mean, it's a shame to go all that way and not at least get a cool selfie!

Captain's discretion

> Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine. More than 2x Germany. More than 2x Iraq. More than any country in Europe. About 2/3 of Russia.

According to [0], in 2025 Iran had 86M people. Ukraine had 29M (~33%), Germany (highest in Europe) had 83M (~96%, uh?), Iraq had 46M (~53%), and Russia had 146M (~168% / ~59% reversed).

Wildly, wildly wrong about Germany but not too far off the rest[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...

[1] Although if you include Turkey in "Europe", "more than any country in Europe" droops a little because Turkey's 86092168 (99.456%) is basically identical to Iran's 86563000 when it comes to projection and estimation errors.


Also half of the people in iran hate the government or even have a feud with it after it murderd their protesting relatives..

Presumably they meant WW2 Germany.

Germany's population in 1938 was higher. Around 86 million.


I think the comparisons were referring to land area, but I agree this is not that clear from from the comment

> Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine. More than 2x Germany. More than 2x Iraq

Sure, they're talking multiples of land area.


> Sure, they're talking multiples of land area.

But then don't say "people"? Because if you say "has N people" and then "more than 2x Y", no-one is going to go "yes, that's 2x land area" when it was NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY CONTEXT.


Sorry, my post was sarcastic. If they were talking about land area, there was no context clues.

I don't think they can be because "About 2/3 of Russia" -> Iran is (according to [0]) about 636k mi^2 whilst Russia is 6600k mi^2 or just over 10x the area.

(Iran is 4.5x the land area of Germany, 2.7x Ukraine, 3.7x Iraq - sure "2x" works but it's out enough that it doesn't fit with the "land area" claim.)

Also Denmark is in Europe and has a land area (including Greenland) 1.3x that of Iran which strictly breaks the "more than any country in Europe" claim.

In summary, if it's about land area, it's absolute gibberish. If it's about population, it's mostly accurate.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...


> This is making a pretty big assumption that the long-term US energy mix is going to stay the way it is.

It's the stated goal of one of the parties to keep or increase fossil fuel usage, isn't it?

> Meanwhile the US administration flips parties every four to eight years

Magic 8 Ball says "yeah, in the past, 2028 isn't looking good though"

> next time they're Democrats they'll be trying to hasten that result

Which will be blocked and/or immediately overturned by the current/next Republic Congress/Senate/SCOTUS/President.


It might be the goal - but there are a lot of other factors than just one party.

> It's the stated goal of one of the parties to keep or increase fossil fuel usage, isn't it?

The stated goal of the same party is to have "cheap energy" and the way voters judge is by things like how much they're paying for electricity. Which means their incentive is to make a lot of noise about how much they hate windmills and love coal while not actually preventing data center companies from building new solar farms to power them. One of their most significant benefactors is also the CEO of the largest domestic electric car company.

> Magic 8 Ball says "yeah, in the past, 2028 isn't looking good though"

Two years is forever in politics. We also have the leader of the Republican party doing all the pandering he can right now because he's trying to sustain a majority in the midterms, whereas in 2028 he can't run, and what's Trump going to do in the intervening two years during which he has no personal stake in the next election?

> Which will be blocked and/or immediately overturned by the current/next Republic Congress/Senate/SCOTUS/President.

That's not what happened last time. The electric car subsidies were introduced in 2008 and sustained until 2025.

We're also at the point where these things are going to get rapidly adopted during any period without active resistance to them.

How many years of the majority of new vehicles being electric or plug-in hybrids would it take before there are enough in the installed base to cause a long-term reduction in petroleum demand, and in turn a reduction in the economic and political power of the oil companies? Also notice that this still happens if Asia and Europe adopt electric vehicles regardless of whether or to what extent the US does, since it's a global commodity market.


> After 9/11, there's no world in which any attack on the US homeland, however small or local, is met with anything other than overwhelming retribution.

Unless it's by a right-wing white male, obvs., in which case they get promoted / lauded / re-elected / etc.


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

Search:

HN For You