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

I was hoping this page would tell me how to italicize words. I still don't know how.


> I'm all in favor for releasing them, but do people really think this document will change much?

The government seems to fear that it would.


"The government" is tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. I have a hard time imagining this list being released would change much about how it operates, frankly. This strikes me as resistance borne of individual—if deep—fear.

With this in mind, I have to assume that they were killing children on Epstein's island.

Nah that was in Romania.

It’s all linked together though.


Not to speak for the OP, but I think they would argue that 'Cocomelon' type content would be a great use of the tech.

I think you have mistaken the camera zooming to avoid clipping with the environment with your fingers controlling the zoom. Unless there is some secret zoom gesture I'm missing.

The game is the one mistaking it, all happens with single finger movement.

One second it is going forward, sundenly the next second zooms in.


Well perhaps you are experiencing a bug since mine only does that when there is an obstacle in the way of the camera.

You can communicate by sending emojis with the menu in the bottom right.

If you have a keyboard, then upper keys 1-2...9-0 do all the emojis as hotkeys. Ex, 9 does the takeout food, which is probably meant to be "busy, eating" or something similar.

What video did you watch?

Nintendo Direct. Download issue persisted with all videos though

I do agree a balance of pain and pleasure is necessary. But I also believe you can make your default state a gentle fluctuation between the two, rather than wild swings.

In my experience, this is largely a force of habit -- I one day found my default reaction to almost any event was to chastise myself, for example. If you can break this habit and return to a more tranquil medium, I think that's as close to being "always happy" as it's possible to get.


You may think you can change it but what if that came with the package? What if you were born bipolar or depressive?

This is how I, a web developer, feel whenever I'm required to build something using cmake. I guess I need to go read a book about it or something because the instructions seem different every time.


I've been coding in C++ since the 90s, that's also how I feel whenever I'm required to build something using cmake.


Which is funny, because it's probably the easiest to use (common) build system around.


I beg to differ. It's only easy for projects you're constantly using daily. People tend to build all sorts of abominations with it.


This is hilarious to me, because for me it is exactly the other way around.

Just last Friday, some coworker showed me her mermaid diagrams about workflows at work. I am still not comfortable with needing to login to some website to convert some format into a useful format. If I cannot run it locally on my computer it doesn't exist for me. So I tried to install their official looking cli client.

The protocol from my memory roughly looks like this I npm install something, then it tells me I have to npx (wth is that? I think that is new) install something, which gives me some weird puppeteer permissions issue. If it is permissions I guess I have to be root for the install, I try a bit more and get nowhere the same issues keep happening. Look on their website, see they have a docker as an alternative, this is a pretty newly installed computer so I have to install docker, but which one? There is 3 options and I am not sure. I try to run their docker and mess up because I do not read the documentation correctly and I have to map the directory with my .mdd file with <my-dir>:/data and this was unintuitive to me so I ignored the first part and replaced /data with my path. Again obviously a mistake on my side, but it happens every time and adds to my confusion. I look into the docs again and find my mistake. I finally get a resulting svg from the docker command. Excitement! I open the svg and it lacks all the text and I think there were also errors in the shape. Then I remember obsidian has a mermaid plugin so I thought about trying that, but the obsidian install also fails with some random error about not being able to connect to chrome.

On the other hand whenever I get a cmake project I clone it. I create a folder for the build, cd into it, run cmake <path-to-source-folder> without even looking at the documentation and it either works or I get a pretty clear message what is missing on my OS and with a short web search I can just apt install it and try again (yes this sometimes has multiple rounds) and it works!


Ok, my turn now. Let's build the project 'msdfgen' using cmake.

First step is cloning the 'msdfgen' repo. Done. Next step is reading the readme, which states "to build the project from source, you may use the included CMake script. In its default configuration, it requires vcpkg as the provider for third-party library dependencies. If you set the environment variable VCPKG_ROOT to the vcpkg directory, the CMake configuration will take care of fetching all required packages from vcpkg."

Google 'vcpkg' and end up at the vcpkg website. Click 'get started'. Land on a documentation page. This doesn't look like the right place. Click back and select 'browse packages' instead. This doesn't look like the right place either. Google 'install vcpkg windows'. Find a microsft site saying I need to clone the vcpkg repo. Ok. Clone vcpkg repo. Next step is running the vcpkg bootstrap script. Cd into the directory. Run '.\bootstrap-vcpkg.bat'. Next step is setting the environment variable. Open powershell. Add vcpkg to my path environment variable by copy pasting what the website tells me. Cd back into the original repo. Google how to build using cmake. It looks like I need to install cmake by first downloading the executable from the cmake website. Download cmake 4.1.1. Install.

Ok, it's time to run cmake. Navigate to the guide on the cmake website. It looks like I need to first create a build directory alongside my source directory. Open terminal and navigate to the folder just above the msdfgen-master folder. Run mkdir msdfgen-build in powershell. It looks like I now need to cd into this folder and run 'cmake ..\msdfgen-master'. Run it. It fails with three errors. "Vcpkg triplet not explicitly specified and could not be deduced. Recommend using -A to explicitly select platform (Win32 or x64)". Google what this means. Confusing. Look at the second error "CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:70 (project): Running 'nmake' '-?' failed with: no such file or directory". Hmm, what is 'nmake'? Google it. It looks like I might need to install 'nmake' and add it to my path environment variable as well. Google it. It looks like I need to install "Visual C++ Development Tools". Google it. It looks like I need to install Visual Studio, and choose "desktop development with c++". Total space required: 10gb. Install this. Restart powershell and cd back into the build directory. Run 'cmake ..\msdfgen-master' again. Same errors.

If I had time, I'd continue down this path, but I know from experience that it will require another day or two of tooling around to get it working. I know I probably look like an idiot who doesn't understand cmake, but that's my whole point: it's a very confusing process for anyone who's unfamiliar.


I had to install vcpkg yesterday for the first time. Well, actually, I ran into a problem last week that could have been solved by installing vcpkg. I also happened to read a comment here on hacker news recently that mentioned vcpkg (but I didn't know what it was).

The problem was that 'cargo install cargo-show' wanted access to an OpenSSL installation (under Windows). The long error spew did mention vcpkg once or twice so I googled it and got very confused by the readme.

So I tried to install OpenSSL without vcpkg. That worked ('winget install openssl') but 'cargo install cargo-show' still didn't. Perhaps I had set up some environment variables wrong.

Yesterday, I finally figured out how to install vcpkg and it was indeed very simple, despite its readme. 'cargo install cargo-show' still didn't work -- it couldn't find openssl installed with the right "triplet" even though it was clearly installed in a way that should work for all 64-bit x86 Windows.

Setting OPENSSL_DIR and then running 'cargo install cargo-show' worked perfectly.

Apparently, there are different ways the directory structure for a vcpkg installed package can look and the vcpkg/openssl gave me one and the build script for one of the dependencies of cargo-show expected another.

Very, very confusing.

I think you can get away with just using 'winget install cmake' and then invoking cmake with the right command line to make it play nice with vcpkg (and that command line is listed in several places). I haven't tried it, though.

'vcpkg integrate install' sets up some sort of secret integration with Visual Studio -- maybe vcpkg learns where VS libraries and binaries (compilers/linkers) are hidden and maybe Visual Studio learns how to invoke vcpkg.

If you run it, it will also tell you to how to integrate more explicitly with cmake:

    $ vcpkg integrate install
    Applied user-wide integration for this vcpkg root.

    CMake projects should use: "-DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=/workspaces/vcpkg/scripts/buildsystems/vcpkg.cmake"
I hope this makes it slightly less confusing.


The main advantage of cmake is it's slightly easier to use than autoconf so long as you stick to the path. Do not attempt to leave the path. Also the path is poorly signposted.


That's true for the developer, but for the user Autoconf is way easier. You can pass --help and it explains every option and also has a produces detailed logs.

That is the typical experience for C++ tooling lol


C++ is written by 99% professional architecture astronauts who do fuck all in terms of valuable software. I will die on this hill.


C++ might have been developed by architecture astronauts, but it's used to build a ton of valuable software - KDE, Windows, Spotify, etc etc...


HPC?

Windows NT?

GCC?

Video games?

I'm a veteran C programmer with a deep dislike of C++, but to say it's not used for valuable software is just wrong.


The language committee only makes it harder and more astronauty every year. How many Unreal Engine developers from 2007-2013 understand CPP20/23?


I agree with you. I'm no fan of C++.

With that being said, it is (and has been) used to produce valuable software.


You never need to use everything a language provides. You find the parts useful to you or your team and use all of them.

I was a C++ developer for a decade and knew a fair amount of the C++13 spec but never needed to use even half of it in production. I've been a Java developer for years and don't know 10% of the standard library there. That doesn't make either language poorly designed by itself.


Reminds me of the (now decades old) humorous observation that the entired R5RS (Scheme) book is shorter than the table of contents of the C++ spec.


Lmfaooooo..... to everyone else reading, cpp programs are indeed successful, but they are successful in spite of cpp, not because of it, is my assertion. It is increasingly rare to find major applications using the newest cpp features, because of how obtuse they are for 99.9999% of people, including extremely good programmers, of which a Youtube search could produce 12


Linux is a pretty valuable example of such astronautics. Also things like TCP...

I hope you don't die on a hill tho, not anytime soon at least.


Hilariously incorrect take. Zero CPP in the Linux kernel. Torvalds openly hates CPP.

EDIT: thank you for your well wishes though :)


Huh TIL, my apologies.


How many GPUs were you running?


I'm not sure, but how many GPUs do we expect a refridgerator to have?


So for the example in the article:

> Would you like to share your profile photo?

> Yes, share my profile photo

> No, do not share my profile photo

You'd prefer it says "your" profile photo, instead? Wouldn't that make it sound like I'm sharing someone else's photo?


The example is bloated UI to begin with. It should just be a checkbox with the label: "Share your profile photo".

This is going on a tangent now, but making things more clear and concise allows more options to fit on one screen which also reduces the need for endless submenus. This is a better experience because the user doesn't have to remember where the option is if they're all on one screen anyway, yet still broken up under subheadings.


“Share profile photo” vs “Don’t share profile photo” is just as clear, even more concise, and no ambiguity.


It’s also grammatically incorrect.

Edit: As I stand massively downvoted at this point in time despite my comment being entirely factually correct, I invite any potential downvoter to consider the sentence “Give me apple” before reaching for the button.


Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts.

The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium.

This form of imperative clause does have clear and consistent rules, whether you like them or not.

And just stating that your opinion is factually correct, when it is plainly not, reeeeeally doesn't help your cause.


> The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium.

Definitely no, "Give apple" is baby talk. Completely unacceptable in a choice. That's not proper English. I will die on that hill.

I'm actually shocked by the amount of people here who thinks it's acceptable and fine.

> Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts.

The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition. It's entirely analogous to what I wrote. Are you confused by the "me" in my sentence. "Me" is an indirect object here.

We basically have the same sentence. It just became entirely obvious that omitting the article is erroneous as soon as you had an indirect object. It's equally erroneous without it but apparently people have somehow convinced themselves it is acceptable after years of misuse in poor computer interfaces.


> That's not proper English.

There is no officially sanctioned authority specifying the English language so "proper English" is not a defined concept in any way or form. You can choose to die on that hill, but you're fighting a war that doesn't even have defined sides.


Would you like to give them the apple or the pear?

] Give Apple

] Give Pear

Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options?

> The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition

My apologies, you're correct. I mistyped—I should have said "indirect object". That does not negate any of the rest of what I said.


> Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options?

Yes, I do.

That’s Sierra-like poorly phrased English to save characters in a constrained support. Completely incorrect in any context, inacceptable when you don’t have to save bits.

It’s only somewhat understandable because the zero article is used with proper name. Actually I find it interesting that you found the need to capitalise.


Well, then you are at odds with the vast majority of English-speakers, and will just have to come to terms with the fact that the language is moving on without you.


Telegraphic style is not grammatically incorrect, it’s a feature of instructional English.

Consider “insert nut into bolt”, “slice onion thinly”, or “sprinkle vinegar over chips”.

I agree that your counter example does not work, but that’s due to the ambiguity introduced by having both an indirect and direct object. In a list of short instructions, “give apple to me” would not be ungrammatical.


obviously you insert bolts into nuts, not the other way round.


That's factually incorrect, which is worse.

Imperative mood: subject you is implied, so no need to write it.

https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/imperative_mood.htm

Zero article/bare noun phrase: allows omission of your, the, etc. in fixed instructions.

https://www.thoughtco.com/zero-article-grammar-1692619

Standard negation: "don’t" is the grammatical way to negate an imperative.

https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/imperative-mood


Sadly that is factually correct and none of the links in your reply actually supports your point.

The rule about the zero article doesn't list the case of a noun after an imperative.

The first link is about the subject, not the object and the third is about negative imperative. Why are you posting links about completely unrelated things?

Once again, using a noun without an article this way is gramaticaly incorrect.


"Share profile photo" would be grammatically incorrect as a complete sentence.

But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label.

English has different grammar rules in different contexts. For example, newspaper headlines omit articles all the time. That doesn't make the NYT grammatically incorrect on every page, though. Because they're using correct headline grammar, which is different from sentence grammar.


Heres a secret: Grammer rules are just whats colloquially acceptable speech 50 years ago


That's commonly called Grandma's rules, sometimes shortened to gram's rules. I've never seen the spelling "grammer" before, even though gram'r is arguably more correct than gram's.


> But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label.

Agree to disagree. The reason it sounds robotic is because it's grammaticaly incorrect. The article is not optional before the object in this sentence.


How about these commands:

Raise anchor, fix bayonets, hands up

I think I'm with crazygringo on this one, there's special command grammar.


The 2nd and 3rd examples are plural. You don't need an article for plural nouns. "Fix bayonets." and "Fix the bayonet." are standard grammar. "Fix bayonet." isn't.


Well, hands up is lacking a verb, and fix bayonets is in a funny passive tense - or something - because it seems to say "generally go around looking for bayonets to fix", but means specifically "fix your bayonets". In fact hands up is like that too, the intent is "put your hands up", not just "put hands up" in the abstract.

Then there's informational signs, too. Wet floor is not an instruction. Labels generally aren't sentences.

Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.


> Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.

I have never seen this.

I have seen plenty of "Please close the gate" or "Keep the gate closed". Sometimes, the article is eluded when the noun is subject "Gate must be kept closed" but imperative + noun without an article on a sign seem highly unusual to me. It feels weird so I would definitely notice.

I have seen "ring bell for assistance" however. It's jarring everytime. I must be the strange one.


This kind of phrasing is so common (in American English directions) that I remember examples from when I was very young:

(on toothpaste) "Squeeze tube from the bottom and flatten it as you go up."

(on a kerosene heater) "Rotate wick adjuster knob clockwise until it stops."

Australians tend to prefer more conversationally phrased directions from what I've seen, e.g., the rail station signs that read "Keep off the tracks and use the walkways provided to cross. Or catch a $100 fine. Don't say we didn't warn you, mate!"

Maybe it's a cultural thing.


> I have never seen this.

Genuinely question, where do you live?

I imagine it can't be the US or the UK.

I'm wondering what your local dialect of English is that this construction is uncommon.


To be fair, I think I was mixing it up with instructions on packaging, like "replace cap after use" on tubes of glue.


> Wouldn't that make it sound like I'm sharing someone else's photo?

Since the second party is not present, that interpretation makes no sense and users wouldn't interpret it that way in native English.


In that example I'd prefer that the options are simply "Yes" or "No".

Why repeat the premise of the question in each answer?

Even simpler is a checkbox:

[ ] Share my profile photo.


I'd go for "Share profile photo" for the checkbox. Why even get into ownership of the photo? Maybe it's not mine and was given to me by whoever took the photo? Just keep it simple and stop pretending that my OS is alive.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

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

Search: