Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | J_Darnley's comments login

> the complexity of [...] two fields

If that is true the world is doomed. Giant Meteor 2016


I... I mean... these fuckers can drive, right? They pilot tonne-weight vehicles, at speed, amongst peers. And some of them are responsible for running the power grid, the government, food production, a bunch of other important stuff. They can hold a conversation with another sapient being, and yet a form with two fields is supposedly too much for their minds to deal with?

I don't buy it.


A 1% conversion rate increase for some companies is worth millions.


No. Some users cannot drive.


My point is that these are intelligent beings, capable of doing all sorts of amazing things.

We can't presume that our users are no more than slavering beasts, incapable of understanding even the simplest things.


Not all people are visual thinkers or have large visual bandwidth.

Also, if asking one question at a time adds a % or two to the user base of something as big as Google, then that's a lot of new users.


Does this mean it only took Firefox some 10 years to integrate (part of) the Resurrect Pages extension?


Not every possible feature has to be part of Firefox. And this is for now also just a suggestion that Mozilla is making, so that users can decide over it in the Test Pilot program.


You don't have to request anything. Just alter robots.txt and you can make the Wayback Machine memory hole your entire website.


The keyword here is 'your'.


Or someone else's website to which you now own the domain name


It's so infuriating when I come across a domain squatter that nuked the entire history of a domain in the Wayback Machine. I sort of get why they have to do that but it also defeats most of the point of the Wayback Machine.


I sort of get why they have to do that

I don't. Can you explain?


Archive.org doesn't know the domain changed hands, just that it used to be allowed to show the results but now no longer is.


Doesn't really explain why they have to nuke it, even if it is the current site owner. Respecting robots.txt is one thing, but that just means not spidering and archiving the content that is now there. Deleting already archived material based on later changes to robots.txt is a non-obvious behavior, given the usual understanding of the general meaning of robots.txt.


They're not deleting it, just hiding it from public access. Once the squatter goes away, the content comes back.


What's the difference? Both make this feature (and more general use of the archive) useless.


The difference is exactly what I said: if they deleted it, it's gone forever. If they hide it, it can come back. I've seen pages I cite disappear for a year or two thanks to scummy squatters - but they came back! It's the difference between being sentenced to execution and to 1 year of prison.


Could they not also watch when a domain changes ownership and segment history based on the owner?

Over the time scales that archive.org holds on to data, domain ownership itself becomes part of the history. While permitting someone to hide a mistake for security reasons is reasonable, allowing erasure of past owners' history by the current owner is counter to their stated purpose.


No, because the WHOIS details on the domain can change without ownership actually having changed, in the not-uncommon case where a domain starts out registered by a founder or early employee and is later transferred to the company proper.

Given the prevalence bogus WHOIS data, the inverse is also possible: if the 2nd owner uses the same registrar and "privacy-protection" feature as the original owner, the WHOIS data could appear to have not changed, except for the start date of the registration, which would look identical to a single owner who re-registered their domain after allowing it to lapse.


You set up a website, which fails to do authorization properly. Accidentally you expose personal information about your employees which gets harvested by the archive project. You fix the website, but how do you remove the exposed information from the archives?


Have you tried contacting them about such domains?


Who else would be sending takedown requests?


Content owners that already DCMA'd their content on some third parties website which the wayback machine has backed up.


Location: Belgium, Europe; Manchester, UK

Remote: No. Yes please, not required though.

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: C, FFmpeg, Lua, Win32, x86 assembly

Resume/Résumé/CV: http://j_darnley.neocities.org/resume.pdf

Email: james.darnley@gmail.com

PGP key ID: 0x99412908 fingerprint: 5612 F4E9 53A6 ADA1 0E9B 285A CC26 DD10 9941 2908

OpenHub profile: https://www.openhub.net/accounts/J_Darnley

GitLab profile: https://gitlab.com/u/J_Darnley

I speak English and Dutch. I have no problem adjusting my day to suit your time zone. Desperate enough to accept almost any offer.


SEEKING WORK: Belgium, Europe; Manchester, UK

Remote: No. Yes please, not required though.

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: C, FFmpeg, Lua, Win32, x86 assembly

Resume/Résumé/CV: http://j_darnley.neocities.org/resume.pdf

Email: james.darnley@gmail.com

PGP key ID: 0x99412908 fingerprint: 5612 F4E9 53A6 ADA1 0E9B 285A CC26 DD10 9941 2908

OpenHub profile: https://www.openhub.net/accounts/J_Darnley

GitLab profile: https://gitlab.com/u/J_Darnley

I speak English and Dutch. I have no problem adjusting my day to suit your time zone. Desperate enough to accept almost any offer.


Screw having an idea. Go play video games.


No. This place hates humour, hates fun, and hates anything that distracts from the serious discussion that happens. I'm sorry you had to find out the hard way.


As much as I cheerfully upvote snarky jabs at HN's pretension to highfallutin', superior-quality commentry, consistently downvoting effortless one-liner comments is a great way to ensure that they generally don't happen.


Lost 8 karma first time I found that out.


Worth it.


Paying for travel to the games, maybe.

Amateurs, except for the tennis players, the football players, and the bicycle riders. All of which are the big name stars who get paid to compete in other dedicated tournaments. I'm sure there are others too but those are the most promoted sports.

I don't think the ones above get paid for the Olympics though.


There are lots of professionals in other Olympic sports. Track and field, volleyball, swimmers, basketball, sailing, handball, etc. Usain Bolt is definitely a professional athlete (a sprinter) and so is Marina Alabau (a sailor) or Zhang Jike (a table tennis player).

Regarding compensation, it depends on the country, but I think many will get a bonus payment for medals or good performance. But anyway, the real money lies in advertising deals that athletes can get once they become big names (except for countries that have other types of compensation systems, e.g. North Korea).


> There are lots of professionals in other Olympic sports.

So then there is absolutely no point in watching. Well, not until they start the doping league. (Should we debate whether the current one is?)


Why so? The Olympic Games is the main event for professional track and field athletes, for instance, and if you're interested in professional sports - or any sports of absolutely leading edge competition, even when semi-amateur - then Olympics is the big event.


Oh many reasons. It is the most colossal waste of money. It is a horrible IP abuser. Almost everything surrounding it is massively corrupt. Some sports don't deserve to be in because they are not about (or less about) individual athletic performance.

Even if you like the competition those seem like strong reasons not to watch.

I personally think that if you are going to allow finely engineered shoes, poles, javelins, boats, balls, bicycles, then you should allow finely engineered bodies.


> With a grant of up to €30,000, software developers [...] can write code and develop open source prototypes over a period of six months.

> You have 6 months to implement your idea from the first concept to a prototype.

Oh, it wants to fund new stuff and not fund a Firefox, Gimp, Linux kernel, whatever dev to work for 6 months.


It wants new stuff, but that doesn't mean "from scratch" or "not firefox". Plain bugfixing is out, new features may be in. You have to write a paragraph or two about how New Feature X is in line with their goals, one of which is more intelligent/better informed use of people's personal data. It doesn't seem impossible to do something along those lines with firefox.


The FAQ says you can also work on existing projects, given that you can clearly define a project for the funds.


Any new module for an existing project is eligible as well. It's in the FAQs.


Hope a new module, that replace an old module (with less functionality) is accepted too.


Gimp is a more traditional Free SW project, but most developers on Firefox and the Linux kernel are already being perfectly funded by the corporations that employ them.


What is wrong with you? You are living the dream. That sounds like the perfect life. I wish I had that when I was 22. Heck I wish I had that now.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: