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

IIUC, while the water heats faster, it has a lower upper limit (the boiling point), while oil and fat keep getting hotter.

Source: I have ruined a few plastic containers by heating greasy food in the microwave, because the fat easily gets hot enough to melt the plastic. Homemade Bolognese sauce seems particularly dangerous in this regard, because it is both acidic and greasy, and that will absolutely EAT plastic.

P. S. Even if you don't damage the plastic per-se, heating oily food in the microwave in a plastic container isn't a good idea, quite a few nasty compounds will leach into the oil more readily than into water.


Perhaps "What are you making?" instead?


Alternatively, "Special Effects". Also VFX/Visual Effects, etc., one supposes.

Although that would have it expand to "Graph Effects" (hmm, that could be an interesting library), or "Graphic Effects".

But GFX expanding to simply "Graphics" has a history going back at least to the early 1990s, and even further:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Jy8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=%2...


It's not common anymore (like, in the past three decades), but "taking the lowest bid from some rando" is definitely still a thing.


I've been using Nomi.ai as a research assistant, tutor, and interlocutor.


I remember getting a copy of the Joy of Cooking a couple of decades ago specifically for the peanut butter cookie recipe (a childhood favorite), and was SO disappointed in the results that I eventually tracked down a 1975 copy to compare. The specifics elude me at the moment, but IIRC, the majo recipe differences came down to about twice as much peanut butter in the 1975 version, and twice as much flour in the new one.

Like, the results aren't even close to being comparable. The new recipe produces something you might call "peanut butter flavored shortbread", I guess.


Yeah I was a hard no on the new edition (my first copy, 1979, was a going-to-college gift from my truly wonderful parents-as-cooks). The reason being was when it came out multiple people noticed that the truly exquisite JoC brownie recipe was now mediocre. Why would they do that?

This feature of very long lived cookbooks with inconstant author lists needs to be better understood.


Well, you've now made your original intent specific, but in case you didn't draw the requisite lesson I'll make that explicit.

Because text has less bandwidth than almost any other medium, certain forms of humor are much more likely to be understood (in this case, your "gentle playfulness" was taken to be snark, sarcasm, and point scoring).

If you insist on using this and similar forms of humor that, ordinarily, depend quite strongly on intonation to convey intent, you'll have to be much more explicit to avoid being misunderstood. You are going to have actually state your intent explicitly as part of your communication. This need not entirely destroy the humor, for example, you might try something like this:

And so I say to you (playfully, sir, playfully): etc.

Or this:

Yadda yadda yadda. (I kid, I kid!)

The Internet-native forms of this are the humble ;-) or the newer j/k, but I find that it is all too easy to overlook a 3-character sequence, particularly if the passage being so marked is even as long as a single paragraph, but they can serve their purpose when used for the commonplace one-liner.


"blah, blah, blah" can be an expression of scornful boredom or the utterance of a vampire.


You are painfully boring


Hmm. He's suggesting a model somewhat similar to that of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.


[2004]


Was the performance issue pure luck? Or was it a subtle bit of sabotage by someone inside the attacking group worried about the implications of the capability?

If it had been successfully and secretly deployed, this is the sort of thing that could make your leaders much more comfortable with starting a "limited war".

There are shades of "Setec Astronomy" here.


Plot twist:

It was a psyop to increase the scrutiny around OSS components.

Kidding. Mostly...

But given the amount of scrutiny folks are going to start putting into some supply chains... Probably cheaper to execute than most company's annual security awareness budgets cost.


Considering how difficult it might be (and identifiable) to attempt direct exploitation of this without being sure your target is vulnerable, it’s plausible the performance issue allowed for an identifiable delay in attempts. This might be useful in determining whether to attempt the exploit, with an auto-skip if it received a response in less than N milliseconds.


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

Search: