Except this time we know what happens when you try to cooperate with Russia - eventually you get invaded and genocided, as evidenced in Ukraine. USA is a lesser evil.
I'd say HN should prefer the URL that fits its readers best. Which in this case means paywalled URLs should be replaced with the available workarounds for that problem, ie URLs through that archive.ph.
>For example, chatbots can be programmed to send out large numbers of messages that support a particular political candidate or cause, which can distort public discourse and undermine the integrity of elections.
As opposed to an entire industry doing this, except usually by hiring humans?
The main reason for having function keys is that you can have their labels on the screen, and that's intuitive. You can see it with IBM's CICS. Otherwise they are not that useful, and you can see it in eg laptops making Fn a secondary function, with the primary being adjustment of brightness or volume.
Oh ya, I'm not against function keys or anything, just not for me. Switching to vim 10+ years ago made all my RSI problems go away so now I just like to keep my fingers on the letter keys as much as possible. I don't even like stretching to number row when I can avoid it (though I do all the time, of course).
This sounds silly when I say it out loud, but reaching for the number row always felt like a chore. Of course, when I had to input numbers, I'd still have to reach for the number row. But when numbers were optional, say for vim bindings that take a `[count]`, I opted to look for alternatives instead.
A few months ago however, I bought a moonlander keyboard. Now, I've got one of it's keys that, when held, maps the right side to a full traditional numpad. Typing numbers is much more seamless now. Besides numbers, other keys that always broke my flow (looking at you right curly brace) are much easier to type.
Just thought I'd share as it really elevated my overall typing/vim experience.
I don't think that's silly at all—I hate reaching for number keys and not afraid to say it :D
Another comment in here made think about using Karabiner to give myself a keypad with uiojklnm,. (or something). I actually did this when I used to use a flash-able mechanical keyboard, but I like working on my couch too much so I've been all-in on the short-scale apple keyboards for several years now.
Technically a Rolex, however expensive, will always be much worse as a watch than a 20$ Casio. But recently there's another aspect to this: there are now watches that are technically (mechanically) identical to rolexes. Same design, same mechanics, virtually impossible to tell the difference when you tear it apart. Rolex has always been more about marketing (artificial scarcity, waiting list etc) than mechanics, but now it's pretty much exclusively about marketing, since you can get the same engineering orders of magnitude cheaper. It's like DeBeers' diamonds.
Prestige cars, mega yachts, private jets, and corporations that make rockets and satellites are also male jewellery.
But the article: it's repetitive and slightly rambling and reads like it was written by some variant of GPT.
The point is fair, but it's also well known to class watchers. In the UK nouveau means a gigantic new build mansion full of chrome and glass, a private gym, and plastic and dental surgery. Old means a small country estate, a Georgian pied-à-terre somewhere near the City, tweedy clothing, and perhaps some pedigree dogs. And horses.
Old money tends to underdress - sometimes sloppily - and on casual acquaintance is indistinguishable from the merely middle class.
It's not until you get an invite to the manor house that you discover the ridiculously impractical and expensive Aga stove, the collection of wildly expensive antiques whose prices are never mentioned [1], the relaxed air of charming quizzical bafflement. (Very few of these people are unusually bright or talented. But socially polished - yes.)
The visuals are not the point. Anyone can tweed, but not everyone can tweed like they've been doing it their entire lives and really mean it.
[1] A 17th century silver spoon for £5000? How fascinating!
Somewhere I read that a Rolex has a very practical purpose - a real one is a commodity that can fairly easily be turned into cash or a bribe in an emergency, but as a watch, it's not susceptible to being seized by authorities in many circumstances where cash or gold might be.
I don't know if this is true, but it makes a good story.
Along this vein, I've heard somewhere that pimps wear lots of jewelry because they can pawn it for bail money. Apparently cash can be seized on arrest, but jewelry is classified as some sort of personal property and thus won't be taken.
I have a more obscure watch, but one that those that care recognize. It has signaled me as part of the 'correct' crowd more than once and definitely done it's purpose.
People with money and power respect you more and are more likely to drop their guard in some ways. This applies to in-group signaling generally. In this case the in-group is the rich and powerful.
The search term you want is just "Replica." RWI, RWG, RepTime on Reddit, and other private forums will analyze the quality and details of these clones in ridiculous detail. They also have reviews of each reseller and each factory.
I don't even own any fake watches at this point and I've found these forums highly addictive/interesting - honestly, the average skill/knowledge level is quite high compared to most "watch enthusiast" forums.
Thanks for the hints. About the replicas: Yes but usually you’ll find a few challenges with those. First, pure replicas are illegal, so what you can find legally are called hommages with another logo. That doesn’t make them worst by itself, but here are the drawbacks:
First the maintenance. What is the probability those watches will still be serviceable in 50 years? I own a watch that’s more than 50 years and wear it regularly because it is still maintained by the company who made it.
Second the value holding. Sure you can sink your money in any gear. The special value of great mechanical watches is that they maintain their used value well on the second hand market for decades. An hommage will have little reputation of its own to maintain.
Of course this is all subject to special cases, but, etc because the watch world is very complex. For example many brands copy each other, some replica brand make great quality, and some great brands barely hold their value (which is a good thing for passionate collectors).
No doubt there is a great skilled and passionate community around reproduction, like in music or art. To build a replica you need way more skill than the average watch enthusiast. They rarely outskill the examples they copy still.
Invicta has made some watches that are pretty similar for a long time. They aren't "high quality" replicas or counterfeits, but if you just like the look of a Submariner they seem to have similar watches for well under $100.
A Seiko SKX (or a spiritual successor) with a regulated NH35 will fall into the same “100m water resistance, accurate to within 10 seconds per day” category as a Rolex for about a 10th of the price.
It's pretty common now to find "Super Fakes" of designer brands, that are very difficult to tell apart from the real thing. They'll be expensive but not as expensive as the real thing.
It doesn’t exist without other resources either. What I’m trying to say is, “companies are people” is not true - decisions made by companies are not the decisions it’s employees would normally make if they were not selected - or forced by circumstances - to be aligned with company goals instead of human goals.
Citizens United doesn't matter. What matters is that companies are vastly privileged compared to humans, eg they don't bear criminal responsibility for anything.
For a while you could just execute another binary, it would run without restrictions imposed on the (pledged) parent. This is a stark contrast to Capsicum, where the monotonicity (ie the fact that once you loose the permission to something you'll never ever get it back, unless being explicitly passed it again) is one of the fundamental assumption behind the design.
Many projects manage to accumulate plenty of tech debt in 30 months, without being a deliberate work-alike reimplementation of an existing system.. which I suspect means you're already starting with a certain amount of baggage.
