Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sandblast's commentslogin

Which makes that hope for our future disappear.


how exactly is this the case?


Who is “they”, you think, if not the Chinese or US labs?

Anna’s Archive still doesn't have everything — I suspect all these books described are not in this great dataset.


You describe mobile handheld scanners that are a form of self-checkout in some stores, but not the norm. Most of the commenters here probably associate self-checkout with a station with touchscreen, scanner and bagging area.


I only use the mobile handheld scanner version. If someone has to go through all my items and scan them at the terminal, it's not going to be me; store clerks can do that much faster than I can.


> You describe mobile handheld scanners

Aka 'my phone', but yes. It's the same self-checkout machine (just only need to pay if you already scanned). Widespread in the UK at least.


Instead of explaining why your app needs it, you decided to hand-wave "everyone does this". Peculiar.


It is not. You got it backwards.


The article is pretty self contradictory on this, so ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯


What is that car, and could you make a video of it?


VW ID.4, and it's unlikely I can spare the time for making a video without a really good reason…


"Domain-verifications" is an invitation for everyone else that might need it to use the same standard and convention. "Discord-domain-verification" is not, it's what feels like polluting the global namespace with the company name that might cease to exist in a few years.

At the very least, it should be "domain-verification-discord", "-google" and so on. Maybe even "-com.discord", "-com.google"? And the first part clearly standardized and registered, instead of one entity using "domain" and another one "site".


Why?


Why reinvent the wheel differently 50,000 times instead? I'll usually even prefer a badly designed, but standard, format/encoding over a NIH one from each company - it's just less friction in the end. Heck - include a common format for the value too, then it opens up doors to automating generation with new sites & automatically validating this config for any site following the common format.


No, in fact I don't. But this post wouldn't be of any help anyway. It feels like it's about nothing, there is no substance, just stating some obvious facts. Without examples that lead to some real recommendations, this whole expertise claimed by the author is of no use.


> expertise claimed by the author

The author is on record as trying to remove HTTP 418 "I'm a teapot" support from NodeJS, which resulted in backlash and Python adding support for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_Text_Coffee_Pot_Control_...


Wow. Talk about a storm in a teapot...


Not many people could have gotten that done. Sounds like expertise to me.


Back in 2018 when the internet wasn't completely fun, but still more fun than today...


That's harsh. I believe the author really does get questions from people who want to register a well known path, and probably some of them really failed to consider sites with ~user paths or whathaveyou and this post might push them to use a better solution.

And if you read that and still feel confident that you want a well known url, he links you to the registration process.


The point of the post was that you need to add robots.txt (or similar) because it's a thing, and also tell us where they are.


> add a robots.txt

Which bots will then ignore.


I didn't expect I'd get to use this so soon. Obligatory canned advisory:

https://www.felesatra.moe/blog/2026/06/19/robots


They still ignore it and scan everything even though you have told them not to scan certain paths.


> brain the size of a galaxy

Wow, aren't you humble.


It's a quote from Marvin in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.


Are you sure the counter is not broken?


Yes, it’s running on a Woltlab Burning Board since forever.


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

Search: