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

Indeed, they recommended much more steel reinforcing than Wright’s design, and what got built was somewhere between the two.

AIA has a pretty detailed history of it here: https://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek09/1016/1016d_falli...


I dunno, it sounds like Wright had the concrete done in 1935 and it was 60 years later that "forensic evaluations revealed fatal developing conditions in the late 1990s.". Like after 60 years you can only detect a problem when you bring out tooling (but not an actual failure!)?

I might be no architect but I always hear the comment that "anybody can design a building that stands but it takes an engineer to design a building that just barely stands". It really sounds like Wright correctly designed a building that just barely stands and the rest of the people are too worried about his success.


The engineers of his day and his client both raised concerns. This is the first I've heard that engineers build to barely last. Maybe that's true in software. I hope to hell that it is not true for homes, cars, roads, bridges, aircraft, and spacecraft.

Durability isn’t free. No reason to build for 30,000 years when needs change over time.

Public infrastructure like bridges are designed to predictably decay over time so they can be maintained or replaced if they are still useful. Just look at the NYC subway system there’s tons of old tunnels that just aren’t useful today, they didn’t collapse but they still became obsolete and that’s inside a major city which kept it’s subway system.


Or a balance wheel

One under the radar change in iOS 18 is that contacts permissions are now more like photos have worked for a few years now. Instead of having to give the app all your contacts and then pick within the app, there’s now a system picker and you can choose specific contacts to grant permission for.

That’s cool and all but tbh don’t they already have it from the last time I accidentally pressed allow all? And when it’s out there it’s out there… even the FTC agrees: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41688080

They've had 14 years to get it. I remember ages ago there was a startup Path who famously justified uploading your contacts without permission (before dialogs were implemented) as it being an industry-norm!

https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/07/path-uploads-your-iphones-...


Yes, if you didn’t want them to already have all your contacts you’d need to have declined that previously

Well behaved apps may not have uploaded or looked at anything they didn't absolutely need to, but the problematic ones would


At least they can't track changes to your contacts, which is also an important data.

That's really cool with per app contacts lists, like on GrapheneOS. Seeing it's now on iPhone, I hope it will trickle down to Android too.


Uber is the worst about this. I make a point of disabling notification permissions any time I’m not actively hailing a car.

Forcing periodic password changes has been against NIST recommendations since 2017

[PDF] https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.S...

> Verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator. (page 14)

What's new in 2024's draft is changing this from "SHOULD NOT" to "SHALL NOT"


There’s not enough time in the day to go on a full bore research project about every sentence I read, so it’s not physically possible to be “fully diligent.”

The best we can hope for is prioritizing which things are worth checking. But even that gets harder because you go looking for sources and now those are increasingly likely to be LLM spam.


Traditionally, humans have addressed the imbalance between energy-to-generate and energy-to-validate by building another system on top, such as one which punishes fraudsters or at least allows other individuals to efficiently disassociate from them.

Unfortunately it's not clear how this could be adapted to the internet and international commerce without harming some of the open-ness aspects we'd like to keep.


Metal pipes are sometimes used for grounding the electrical system, making it a hollow wire full of water


1832 x 1920 is the same resolution from the Quest 2, and fresnel lenses may come from that as well.

That effectively means it's Quest 2 optics with a Quest 3 GPU and color passthrough.

The premium Quest 3's lenses and displays are no doubt better, but for the entry level hardware this is still a good upgrade.

The better GPU will mean it doesn't need to lean as hard on "foveated rendering" where the center of the screen is at high resolution and everywhere else is blurry and upscaled with unreadable text. I say "foveated" in quotes because it doesn't know where your eyes are looking, only how your head is oriented, so if you want to see something in detail you need to point your face at it.


If they do it like their current Ray Ban glasses, there's an LED on the front that lights up when it's recording. People will no doubt disable it though.


you can't disable it, and it doesn't really matter anyway because nobody seems to notice it. I have videos of all my friends the first time I run into them using the glasses, and none of them realize that I'm recording them unless I stare at them for long enough without moving.


You can't disable it in software.

You can put a piece of tape over it, fill it with black nail polish, let the smoke out of the LED, or otherwise keep the light from being visible.


This particular LED not only emits light but works in reverse as well: it functions as an ambient light sensor. Recording is paused if the LED and camera inputs have a significant difference in detected light levels.


Huh, that’s a good trick! I figured it was like the AirTag speakers.

Props to Facebook for making it less circumventable.


And anyone that ever uses cash for anything is overpaying, because prices everywhere have been jacked up to include headroom for "give back 2.5% as credit card rewards"


Processing cash might cost retailers even more than cards (miscalculations, keeping change, counterfeit bills, cash collection every day) unless it allows them to evade taxes.


Unless there were some sort of government-provided zero fee digital system for money transfer. Oh well, surely such a thing will never exist.


Not sure if people who prefer to use cash will consider that an adequate substitute.


Well for corporate stores yes. Still a good number of rural area small businesses that give a discount for cash, or only accept cash.


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

Search: