Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | vee-kay's commentslogin

Isn't this "drop-down menu on button click" easily doable using plain old HTML and CSS?

Here's a live example: https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_css_dropdown.asp


If an intern can do the work of a technical lead, architect, software designer, or project manager, why do we need such expensive resources? Just fire all the seniors (including the CxOs) and let the interns run the company as lowest-paid temporary contractors, with the help of AI. /s


They surely cannot. But they can own simple problems end to end.


My smartphone display is at 30% brightness, but the Info button is visible on the top-right corner as a dull gray button. But it just shows credits screen, instead of what's the purpose of the site and how to use it.

But the big blinking green cursor on the top-left corner gave me the visual clue: If we type any text, the next screen then shows various ASCII renditions of that text.

That's it, it seems -- it's a simple ASCII generator tool.

However, I noticed there's no feature to scroll through the generated text, although landscape mode on smartphone makes it easier to read the big ASCII text.

ASCII fans can manually copy-paste the generated ASCII text for use elsewhere.


On Orion the keyboard never popped up on my phone


Someone refers to a sci-fi-esque (more imaginative than scientifically accurate) virtual rendition of an interesting scientific phenomenon (black hole) in a fanous sci-fi movie (Interstellar), in their scientific analysis/critique comment on a HN thread about the virtual sci-fi-esque rentition of such a sci-fi object (black hole)(yes, a simplified easy-on-eyes pseudo-accurate rendition of a black hole, for VR/AR immersion at home, counts as sci-fi-esque, IMHO), and someone else who worked on such famous object (black hole) depicted in that exact sci-fi movie, responds to the comment.

Peak HN, right here!


You have reached the end of the internet. We hope you enjoyed your stay. /s


In my experience in recent years, Oppo and Vivo phones look better, they are more robust and last longer than iPhones and Samsung premium phones.

When giants like Apple and Samsung fail to innovate enough (and when they price their best products beyond the reach of the middle class of most nations), then upstarts will take their throne.

This may be good for industry so there's healthy competition, but it is unfortunate because China's CCP has a policy that Chinese companies must store and share customer and company data in China. So anyone using Chinese electronic gadgets is saying goodbye to their data security and privacy, even if it is an expensive gadget by a bigshot Chinese company (e.g., Lenovo was caught bundling adware on its premium laptops some years ago - search for "Lenovo Superfish" to know more).

https://legioncyber.com/lenovos-security-failures-and-hidden...


FYI, Meta earns billions by showing scam ads.

https://qz.com/consumer-federation-america-sues-meta-scam-ad...

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...

It is unlikely that Meta will suddenly gain morals scruples to avoid profiting from user content, with or without user consent.

This is the same company that invasively spies on its own employees, to train AI models.

https://www.wired.com/story/meta-accidentally-let-employees-...

Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp — has a long history of abusing user trust. It has been fined billions for illegal activities like unauthorised data harvesting (Cambridge Analytica), illegal facial recognition, and mishandling children’s private information. Beyond what’s illegal, Meta is ethically notorious for emotional manipulation experiments, addictive design targeted at teenagers, rampant surveillance (even of non-users), promoting misinformation, and ignoring research that shows its products harm mental health.

https://leehopkins.com/meta-data-abuse-revealed/


Ah, this reminds me of StumbleUpon.


Before the .Net era, there were millions of programmers who were experts in VB. In fact, VB6 was the defacto tool to build desktop apps.

Then Microsoft decided to compete with the new-age rivals: Java and CORBA. So it expanded COM into DCOM and then further into COM+, and eventually released the .Net platform.

Suddenly, those millions of programmers and their built desktop apps were obsolete, as they had to race to understand .Net and learn how to use it to build new apps and replacements for the old VB6 apps.

And somewhere along the way, many of them decided it wasn't worth the struggle (because .Net was a nightmare to install as client apps on Windows machines; even the deployment scripts had becom3 too complex), and they migrated to other tools (Java, Python, Perl, Ruby on Rails, PHP, etc.) or to non-programming jobs (usually management).

Thus, within a few years, Microsoft had veritably killed the programming industry it took decades to build and nurture (and yes, Microsoft's decision to turn a blind eye - as its Windows OSes, MS Office and Visual Studio (VB & VC++) tools were pirated across the world, churning out millions of programmers and users familiar with its products as they used the pirated versions at school, college. home and office - that was also a deliberate decision by Microsoft during this halycon era).

But I feel .Net became too big of a beast even for mighty Microsoft to handle. As concerns grew over the performance aspects and innumerable dependencies of the .Net platform and related tools (Azure, SSIS, SSRS, etc.), the world started to shift away from Microsoft's tools, and that's perhaps why Microsoft finally knuckled under and embraced the open-source ecosystem it had openly hated for decades. VSCode, etc., are Microsoft's last-ditch attempts to have some relevancy in the programming industry.


.net was fine ... they were solving these fleeting problems of interoperability, event driven gui programming, object re-use and a bunch of other things. They tried tackling this so many ways: win16, ole, mfc, activex, win32s ... it was a big mess and nothing really worked well.

Microsoft had some really smart people working on the problem for years and .net was the culmination of the efforts with things like c# and the very interesting f#.

The problem was they finally solved the desktop interoperability problem when it no longer mattered and there wasn't a huge killer app for it.

Properly scoped well designed abstractions can be extremely powerful and also pretty useless.

There's an interesting counterfactual if they had .net ready to go around windows 98 ... I might be on a windows phone right now...


What's interesting is that Microsoft BASIC itself was derived from BASIC-PLUS which itself was derived from Dartmouth BASIC (which evolved into a structured programming language called SBASIC (Structured BASIC). But the popularity of Microsoft BASIC, actually halted the standardisation of SBASIC as an ANSI standard.

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

The Altair BASIC interpreter was developed by Microsoft founders Paul Allen and Bill Gates using a self-written Intel 8080 emulator running on a PDP-10 minicomputer.[1] The MS dialect is patterned on Digital Equipment Corporation's BASIC-PLUS on the PDP-10, which Gates had used in high school.

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

Dartmouth BASIC is the original version of the BASIC programming language. It was designed by two professors at Dartmouth College, John G. Kemeny and Thomas E. Kurtz. With the underlying Dartmouth Time-Sharing System (DTSS), it offered an interactive programming environment to all undergraduates as well as the larger university community.

Dartmouth also introduced a dramatically updated version known as Structured BASIC (or SBASIC) in 1975, which added various structured programming concepts. SBASIC formed the basis of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) "Standard BASIC" efforts in the early 1980s.

In contrast to the Dartmouth compilers, most other BASICs were written as interpreters. This decision allowed them to run in the limited main memory of early microcomputers. Microsoft's Altair BASIC is one example: it was designed to run in only 4 KB of memory (interestingly, it was delivered on paper tape).

Kemeny became involved in an effort to produce an ANSI standard BASIC in an attempt to bring together the many small variations of the language that had developed through the late 1960s and early 1970s. This effort initially focused on a system known as Minimal BASIC that was similar to earliest versions of Dartmouth BASIC, while later work was aimed at a Full BASIC that was essentially SBASIC with various extensions.

But by the late 1980s, tens of millions of home computers were running some variant of the MS BASIC interpreter. It had become the de facto standard for BASIC, which eventually led to the abandonment of the ANSI SBASIC efforts.

Kemeny and Kurtz, however, decided to continue their efforts to introduce the concepts from SBASIC and the ANSI Standard BASIC efforts. This became True BASIC.

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

There are versions of the True BASIC compiler for MS-DOS, Microsoft Windows, and Classic Mac OS. At one time, versions for TRS-80 Color Computer, Amiga and Atari ST computers were offered, as well as a UNIX command-line compiler.

After several years of inactivity, as of February 2026, the TrueBASIC website is officially closed.


Ah, the good ol’ “Embrace, Extend, … Extinguish”


Yes, sadly even VB is at the end of the road, as the .NET team nowadays only focus on C#.


lmao


Kudos for the compilers reference, this is something that many to this day aren't aware, thinking that BASIC started as interpreted and compilers came later, when it was actually an engineering decision to make it fit into microcomputers.


Nit: the pdp-10 is generally considered a mainframe not a minicomputer.


They had a working PDP-10 at the Living Computers Museum (since shut down by Paul Allen's estate). Definitely a mainframe. That thing takes up an entire room.


He's not wrong though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5G93ta66xSk

The tribals from the Sierra Madre Mountains in Northern Mexico - called the Tarahumara or the Rarámuri people - are considered to be among the best endurance runners in the world.

Some of the First Nation tribes of the Americas (especially their messengere who ran hundreds of miles to deliver messages) and the traditional African tribals (such as the Maasai tribe) are also among the best endurance runners in the world.

Kenyan athlete Eliud Kipchoge is the first human to run sub-2-hours marathon.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MoxFkJlVZlA

And when we look at exactly how these world's best endurance runners (truly superhumans) run (i.e., their running style), we realise that all the fancy sports shoes we normies tend to run in aren't really conducive for proper running.

The best endurance runners run in such a way that their feet land on the front of their foot during running, but the typical sports shoes cause our feet to land on the heels (ball on the back side of the foot) (which is what causes injuries due to such daily bad way of running).

Humans evolved to be the best long distance endurance runners, compared to any other animal. It is high time modern humans realised what's the right way to run long distance.


> The best endurance runners run in such a way that their feet land on the front of their foot during running

This is not really true and the whole fore foot vs heal striker thing is a bit of a red herring. There are elite distance runners that are forefoot, mid-foot (probably the majority) and heal strikers. The main thing is that wherever on their foot hits first, the foot itself is under their center of gravity and not out in front of them.


Yep, over striding is the problem in many cases.


I'm sort of in general agreement with you about healthy running practices, but I don't think endurance running - just running for long distances with no eye on time - is a good comparison with performance running - where timing is key, even if you're running log distances. It's to do with the purpose of the running. Eliud Kipchoge only broke 2 hours because of the shoes he was wearing, which are only used for one race, so you're mixing the two aspects a bit there. There are also issues with running on the balls of your feet. I injured my metatarsals by running like that, and they only recovered when I reverted to a slightly flatter running style. The choice isn't just between "ball" and "heel", there's a grey area in-between, and the thing I distrust about alot of the "natural running" stuff is the ideological purity that it often engenders.


> It's to do with the purpose of the running. Eliud Kipchoge only broke 2 hours because of the shoes he was wearing

That’s a vast oversimplification.


OK, let me put it another way. Do you think Kipchoge would have broken two hours if he'd been wearing trainers with technology from five years ago?


Maybe? Like, the shoes are certainly a contribution factor, but you're basically talking about stacking multiple 0.1 percenters at that point, which one tipped things over the line is hard to say, and you obviously have to account for the fact that Kipchoge is a genetic freak (like all top athletes) with a couple decades of consistent training behind him and a team hell-bent on finding all incremental gains they can. That period also saw significant improvements in fuelling strategy, amongst other things.


You’re peddling mostly nonsense.

Modern shoes don’t force you to heel strike.


True, but they do make it a lot easier. But the heel strike itself isn't the problem, it's the over striding that modern shoes also encourage


Do you have any evidence that modern shoes encourage over striding?


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

Search: