"Houston, we have a problem" RIP Jim Lovell.
Since we're talking about the actual astronaut, not the movie, I feel I should point out Swigert and Lovell both say "Houston, we've had a problem", not have.
Readit Newsxatax commented on Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander, has died nasa.gov/news-release/act... · Posted by u/LorenDB
XKCD always has a relevant comic: https://xkcd.com/1172/
That's linked in the OP.
xatax commented on Occasionally USPS sends me pictures of other people's mail the418.substack.com/p/a-b... · Posted by u/shayneo
This is an useful to know for websites that incorrectly mark the address as invalid for a '.' in the local portion.
Is this something you come across often? I always give the canonical spelling of my email, dots included, and can't remember a time when it wasn't accepted.
xatax commented on Making any integer with four 2s eli.thegreenplace.net/202... · Posted by u/LorenDB
Is 7 really notoriously difficult to define?
7 = 2/2 + 2 + 2 + 2
You used five twos.
xatax commented on What happens in a mind that can't 'see' mental images quantamagazine.org/what-h... · Posted by u/VHRanger
I've always struggled with descriptions of aphantasia and I don't know if I have it myself because I don't know what's "normal". This article also didn't clarify it.
When imagining an object, do people literally see it as if they were physically looking at it with their eyes (as if a physical image appeared on the inside of their eyelids)? When I imagine something, there's nothing visual/optical involved. It's like a dim picture that originates in my brain--I can kind of put something together, but it lacks any detail or clarity. My actual vision stays completely black.
I'm in the same boat. I can't see things as though they're physical objects but I can sense them in some other way.
I can also draw outlines with my eyes closed - e.g. I can point my finger out and trace the positions of my desk, table, windows, etc.
But when explaining the concept of aphantasia, my go to explanation is to look directly at a person, close my eyes, and say "I have no idea what you look like." I can still sense where they are - height, weight, - and I can state facts about their beard or hair colour, but I'm not seeing it in any way I'd normally use the word 'see'.
But with all that, I feel like it could be close enough that that might be how others sense things and we just lack the terminology to express it, so I tend not to say I'm aphantasic as a definite term.
xatax commented on Netlify just sent me a $104k bill for a simple static site old.reddit.com/r/webdev/c... · Posted by u/laubonghaudoi
One additional feedback, for consideration: to me, your Pricing page[1] doesn’t make it sufficiently clear that the “Starter” plan may incur costs at all (let alone in this ballpark). It’s now more apparent when looking at it in hindsight, but you have to either read very carefully, or go to the separate “View Features” page to understand this.
“0$ to get started, then pay as you go” reads to me: “0$ to get started, and then you can order add-ons and extra features as you need them”, not “$0 to get started, but we may start charging you virtually unlimited amounts at any point without prior notice”.
When signing up for the “Starter” tier initially, I completely misunderstood this. I didn’t have to enter any credit card or invoice details, so I thought as long as you don’t have that info from me, you can’t and won’t bill anything.
> 0$ to get started, then pay as you go” reads to me: “0$ to get started, and then you can order add-ons and extra features as you need them
I think I disagree with this, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Pay as you go sounds strongly to me that you pay based on your actual usage, not that it's free except for add-ons. A pay as you go phone, for example, does not imply you need to buy a telephony add-on, an SMS add-on, etc.
PAYG phones, however, were always prepaid, so I think I would expect PAYG hosting to be similar. That said, if my site was publicly accessible without my prepayment, I think it would be clear that it works the way it apparently does.
It's potentially misleading, but I don't think it's intentionally dishonest.
Possibly related: I've noticed that when I'm in humid weather and I stick my phone into a damp pocket, it basically monkey-tests until I pull it back out again. Flashlight might be on, string of gibberish might be queued up on a text message, etc.
I'm normally really good about locking the screen when I'm done, but something with fingerprint or face recognition or lock screen quick actions behaves poorly.
> but something with fingerprint or face recognition or lock screen quick actions behaves poorly
Maybe I'm not crazy. Twice in the past couple weeks, my phone has seemingly unlocked itself in my pocket and I suspected it was to do with moisture/sweat, but dismissed it as unlikely.
In the first instance, it emergency dialed. I had just hung up the phone and put it away, so I thought I hadn't secured it.
In the second instance, I hadn't touched my phone in several minutes when suddenly my podcadt was overlaid with a demo video from an executive at my company which had opened in Teams. I closed out of that and discovered an unsent text to my wife filled with gibberish and a dozen image attachments.
I have a swipe and fingerprint enabled. My best guess is the mosture is registering my leg through the pocket and swiping it unlocked in an infinite monkeys scenario. I switched to password only for my walks now and haven't had an issue since.
Here’s an idea, call them employees.
Every company I've ever worked for has had some sort of name for their employees. It's probably supposed to foster some sense of community/belonging.
You're welcome to take the cynical approach to that, sure, but I've never felt it to be a particularly harmful thing. It's good to have some semblance of a friendly culture, if only to break up the day.
Some people will like it and I'm sure some people hate it. I've never given it a second thought though.
> A number of Snoos have been working around the clock, adapting to infrastructure strains, engaging with communities, and responding to the myriad of issues related to this blackout
I find a CEO referring to their employees as 'Snoos' to be offputting personally.
I'm sure it's meant to be a fun and inclusive term but the guy is sending out a pretty serious email that ends in, "I am sorry to say this, but please be mindful of wearing Reddit gear in public. Some folks are really upset, and we don’t want you to be the object of their frustrations."
The tone strikes me as weird for this message and I feel like the term 'Snoo' is infantizing at best?
Maybe I'm alone, it just feels super weird to hear that coming from someone with the title of CEO at a company of more than 100 people
Snoo is the name of the reddit alien. I believe it was going to be the original name of the site (what's new - what'S NOO).
Since "redditor" is a community name, it makes sense there would be a different internal/employee demonym and Snoo fits the site as good as any other name might.