Nothing in the comment that we are talking about indicates that "pre-1900" is referring to 1900 BCE. It sounds squarely like it's referring to 1900 AD to me. Which is why people are saying it's ridiculous.
> It sounds squarely like it's referring to 1900 AD to me.
What part of "If you moved from one place to another, you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates." suggests 1900 CE to you? Have you never looked at a history book?
There are still plenty of pirates around to this very day; a "significant issue" according to your own link. Despite that, the aforementioned statement doesn't make me think it has anything to do with today. What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE?
> What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE
Normally when someone says "1900" they are referring to 1900 AD. Unless BCE had already been mentioned, which here it had not. And if they were referring to 1900 BCE they normally would specifically say 1900 BCE. That's why.
And furthermore, the parent comment above the one talking about "pre-1900" was talking about modern passports. Why would anyone immediately jump from modern passports to 1900 BCE? That don't make no sense at all. Jumping to 1900 AD however, that does make sense. You see?
Absent of any other context one might reasonably assume "1990" Refers to 1900 CE. But we have additional context, such as:
"Cities had guards.", "you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates."
What in that speaks to 1900 CE over 1900 BCE? There is evidence of pirates in both time periods, so that feature alone isn't telling. But the context doesn't end with that feature in a vacuum, does it?
I applaud you for uploading even if it’s a bit disorganised still, and I do the same. It’s better to have something than nothing. Sometimes I see people talking about something but they don’t want to upload their code yet because they have to clean it up first. And then either they don’t get around to ever cleaning it up the way they wanted, or by they time they do it will have fallen off everyone’s radar and be forgotten. At least with a messy repo it’s possible to poke around, and not the least to star it and maybe check back later to see if they cleaned it up.
But did they actually mean literally to use ][ as square brackets. Or is it merely an approximation that is meant to be read as Roman numeral two. And then people in that time writing it as ][ because Unicode didn't even exist yet. And then people stuck with that.
I don't know what the confusion could be. That's the name of the product. It's '][' because that's a creative way to write 'II' which is a fun way of writing '2.'
Just like the Apple //c
And the other is a clone of that repo which was reuploaded manually instead of using the “fork” UI buttons of GitHub. Which is fine and all. But better to link the original as the repo anyway.
You're catching more heck than me but, for real it's a great competitive cross cut. Maybe my remarks seemed flippant but, curated list like this is what I wish Google or AI could deliver. It's quality content.
> G Data's research showed that the Bitcoin address linked to SnipVex had received about 9.3 BTC, roughly $100,000
How big was the largest amount stolen?
It could be a few individuals with a lot of money in their unprotected software wallets, or it could be a lot of people with relatively smaller amounts stolen from each of them.
If you only have a couple hundred dollars worth of bitcoin and don’t intend to buy any more of it then it doesn’t make much sense to spend as much on a hardware wallet as those cost. But if you have like $500 of bitcoin then it starts to make more sense. Especially if you plan on buying more of it. And if you have over a $1,000 and are still using a software wallet you should really look into getting a hardware wallet ASAP IMHO.
I’ve seen other hardware companies that host firmware downloads for their products on Google Drive and some Chinese cloud drive. I don’t think doing that, nor Dropbox link, is different really from hosting it on Mega.
I think this is a result of the strategy that the AI chose for picking languages. I saw when it was planning what to do it said that it was going to use a regex against the post titles. Probably it only included the specific languages above in that regex. Leaving some languages out. Which should still mean it hopefully has accurate numbers for the languages it chose to look for, but it might be missing several other more or less widely mentioned languages.
If I ask it specifically to count how many Show HN posts mention Lisp or Scheme in the title, it says there’s a total of 370 mentioning one or the other of those.
Nothing in the comment that we are talking about indicates that "pre-1900" is referring to 1900 BCE. It sounds squarely like it's referring to 1900 AD to me. Which is why people are saying it's ridiculous.