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

Full-screen-but-not-native is useful enough that it's handy to have around for all windows in all programs.

So the move there is to install Rectangle.app (https://rectangleapp.com/), the successor to Spectacle, and then choose your terminal independently.


That’s not what iTerm2 does.

I want an actual-full-screen, with menu-bar and Dock invisible, with no window chrome - not merely “fill the maximum allowable space by the OS, as if dragging the windows corner with mouse”.

BUT I don’t want to use the native affordance for that, since that makes it its own “Desktop”, and I can no longer switch to it using my Snow Leopard-era muscle memory of using ^-<number> to switch between them.

I am fully aware that this is incredibly niche requirement, but it is a dealbreaker for me :)

I saw that Ghostty kinda supports this; but then disables tab support if this is enabled, which, also an obvious dealbreaker.


It’s growing into a similar problem as faced by nations with an inverted population pyramid and no immigration: an increasingly smaller share of workers whose productivity supports an increasingly large proportion of the economically idle.

But it happens much faster because rather than being economically idle due to having worked and contributed to society for 40-some years like those nations’ retiree seniors, Haredim move smoothly from being children drawing on societal resources to being adults drawing on societal resources with no period of usefulness in the middle. By analogy, they’re the peacock feathers of Israeli society, and how things get resolved with that will get … interesting.


Ramanujan himself survived childhood smallpox and died at just 32 from what's thought to be complications from an earlier bout with dysentery. But he had lucked out in that he was born male in an urban setting in a high caste, with access to education, textbooks, and the language of the imperial core, and managed to make it to adulthood at all.

“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” ~ Stephen Jay Gould


If we individual makeup was so irrelevant we wouldn't have just had me Ramanujan so far. Although I agree that Einstein is probably very unremarkable and was mostly the right (genius) person in the right place at the right time in history of science to marry together things other people figured out and sprinkle some unique framing onto that.


It's not that individual makeup is so irrelevant, it's that if we assume (potential) Einsteins and Ramanujans follow a normal distribution (or really any random distribution), then the fact that so many people in the world live in situations where any genius will simply never be noticed means we are necessarily missing out on the vast majority of them.


Producing less corn rather than subsidizing it is the better way to go.

This just seems like another fake-green boondoggle, similar to ethanol.


Checklists have been demonstrated to improve care quality because when it's the not-so-nice nurse that's on shift, and the doctor's been awake for 60 hours straight, the stuff that's on the checklist still gets done.


The opposite of shorting is just buying the stock: exchange the market price $X for a share of stock today, sell later for $Y, profit or loss is $Y - $X. You've made money if the stock has gone UP. Since there's no upper bound on the price of a share but the lower bound is $0, you can lose at most your initial outlay $X, but potential gains are uncapped.

Shorting a stock is borrowing the stock: that is, you get a share of stock today (and sell it today for market price $X) but are liable for returning the share of stock at some time in the future (you obtain it from the market at $Y to do so). The profit or loss is thus $X - $Y. Since there's no upper bound on the price of a share but the lower bound is $0, you can gain at most your initial outlay $X if the price goes to zero, but potential losses are uncapped.


Pike's comment gets a lot of play because it happens to have great explanatory power for observed language design choices.

It not "hardly the language philosophy", it's the language philosophy stripped of the ego-fluffing layer of marketing to language end-users.


No it's not. Please read some more recent writing by Rob Pike, like here: https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2024/01/what-we-got-right.... The money quotes:

> In short, Go is not just a programming language. Of course it is a programming language, that's its definition, but its purpose was to help provide a better way to develop high-quality software, at least compared to our environment 14 plus years ago.

> And that's still what it's about today. Go is a project to make building production software easier and more productive.

I think there is an idea that Go is "software engineering for the masses", and that's why the word "easier" is used, and not "simpler". "easier" is fine when you're starting out and you don't know what you don't know. As times goes on, you start understanding more because you have more experience, and so you may yearn for something simpler, with less abstractions, more control. Go isn't the best language for this, but it's also far from the worst.


Yeah, he did it all for the immense personal gains of … getting poisoned, imprisoned, and dying in an Arctic prison colony before reaching 50.

Navalny being a Russian chauvinist should be utterly unsurprising: it would be significantly stranger for Russian opposition to be a stereotypical '60s hippie as opposed to, you know, Russian.


Personal gains as in hoping to become the next dictator - he gambled and lost. Nothing more, nothing less. As I said, I don't believe anyone in russia wants to change the system on either political level or social level. From what I can see, (almost) everyone strives for this lifestyle. It's only a question of who comes out on top.


Navalny will be remembered, just as Boris Nemtsov is remembered.


The attributes that would let one reliably eyeball a person who got fired doing their walk of shame also made for a soul-sucking workplace.

That "back in the day" algorithm required an office that emphasized butt-in-seat, lacked flexible working hours, and lacked both personal offices and multiple exit points.


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

Search: