I'm sure that people like the root of this thread mean well, but at the same time that attitude is exactly what kept me from receiving treatment or care when I was younger.

Nat and [name redacted] were always exceptionally close, which I always found confusing. [name redacted] was intense, passionate, charismatic, but also had troubled and troubling relationships with people, _particularly_ women. [name redacted] was, if I remember correctly, let go from Ximian when he failed to arrive to work every day by noon for one week straight (we lived a 5 to 10 minute walk from the office).

Even after [name redacted] was let go, he and Nat remained fast friends.

> "Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto.

> Following Google's corporate restructuring under the conglomerate Alphabet Inc. in October 2015, Alphabet took "Do the right thing" as its motto, also forming the opening of its corporate code of conduct.[1][2][3][4][5] The original motto was retained in Google's code of conduct, now a subsidiary of Alphabet. In April 2018, the motto was removed from the code of conduct's preface and retained in its last sentence.[6]

I know saying Google removed Don't Be Evil is something of a trope, but the truth is a little more complicated. And, of course, the presence or absence of this phrase has no necessary bearing on the degree to which they are perceived as evil or not!

* Split version number into version numbers separated by non-alphanumeric components (e.g., 3.10.2 becomes (3,10,2) and 3.2 becomes (3,2)).

* Compare two versions item by item numerically (in this case, 3==3 but 10 > 2 so 3.10.2 is newer than 3.2).

This is a massive oversimplification, and if you're curious you can read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Archive:Tools/RPM/VersionComp... for the gory details.

Source: long ago I worked at a company named Ximian that shipped a software update product that worked on systems using both RPM and dpkg, and I had to deeply understand this problem space.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23538835

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

BFR isn't a name that's still in use. Poster you're responding to was correct in calling it Starship: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship)" (from https://www.spacex.com/starship).

Starship projects to be significantly less expensive than Falcon Heavy _or_ Falcon 9. With total reusability of both stages and a construction built toward little to no refurbish or rehab, the cost per launch is nearly completely dictated (order of magnitude) by fuel costs, and project to be ~$2 million. This is an order of magnitude reduction in $/kg over the Falcon 9.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-...

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3740/1

That is a factually incorrect statement. You lose access to any games you claimed for free as a benefit of your Stadia Pro membership if you cancel your membership; you regain access to those games if you renew, but you will not gain access to games that were offered for free during any interval where you were not a subscriber.

You retain access to any game you paid for, _even_ if you paid a discounted rate as a result of being a Stadia Pro member, even if your subscription is canceled.

I'm not sure they have quite the history you're implying.

As sibling points out though, we may just not be the target audience.

> In this century, we urgently need to undo some of the consequences of the last great boom by developing affordable zero- and negative-emissions technologies. That's another hard problem—and to solve it, we'll need to recapture some of what made the “special century” so special.

> Anaxagoras was arrested, tried and sentenced to death, ostensibly for breaking impiety laws while promoting his ideas about the moon and sun.

This provides the context to understand that while the title is true at a surface level, his claims around the moon likely served as pretext rather than true cause.

You write:

> Its exactly analogous to claiming James Watson was attacked because people didn't like the chemical bond structure of DNA.

I disagree. An exact analogy would require that James Watson was actually attacked for his belief in the structure of DNA, which served as a pretext for the real claims against him. James Watson was attacked directly for his views on race.

Doubly applicable in this case, as it talks about the perils of a single study _and_ discusses this in the context of minimum wage research.