On bash, you can achieve this by setting HISTCONTROL=ignorespace but that's not the default.

This was an update to the earlier 4.3 BSD (1986) which still implemented printf() in VAX assembly instead, and doesn't support the %n feature.

So %n may have originally been implemented in 4.3 BSD Tahoe and made its way into SVR4 subsequently.

The fact that i686 is 14% faster than x86_64 is a little suspicious, because usually the same software runs _faster_ on x86_64 (despite the increased memory use) thanks to a larger register set, an optimized ABI, and more vector instructions.

Of course, if you are compiling an i686 binary on i686, and an x86_64 binary on x86_64, then the compilers aren't really doing the same work, since their output is different. I'm not a compiler expert, but I could imagine that compiling x86_64 binaries is intrinsically slower than for i686 for a variety of reasons. For example, x86_64 is mostly a superset of i686, so a compiler has way more instructions to consider, including potential optimizations using e.g. SIMD instructions that don't exist on i686 at all. Or a compiler might assume a larger instruction cache size, by default, and do more unrolling or inlining when compiling for x86_64. And so on.

In that case, compiling on x86_64 is slower not because the hardware is bad but because the compiler does more work. Perhaps something similar is happening on RISC-V.

It wouldn't surprise me if something similar is happening with social media and indeed a lot of the news is astroturfed to some extent, though I agree we shouldn't discount the extent to which people are willing to participate in this by reposting popular content for a quick ego/karma boost. And increasingly that reposting is done by bots.

Compare it with e.g. Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_access_to...

The tables allow you to quickly find the countries with the highest and lowest values, which is impossible on your site, and the map is helpful to give a general overview of how the numbers vary between global regions.

Some more concrete feedback:

  1. The "Update Data" button seems unnecessary here, since there is only one input element: why not just update the graphic whenever the country listbox changes value?
  2. The country listbox is not keyboard navigable.
  3. The countries without data should be greyed out in the listbox.

edit:

And a few other things, the way countries are named is wildly inconsistent, varying from common names to official names and various arbitrary qualifiers.

For example, why is there a "Saint Martin (French part)" but there is no "Sint Maarten" or "Saint Martin (Dutch part)"? Why is Iran listed as "Iran (Islamic Republic Of)" but the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is simply "Pakistan"? Why is the Republic of Belarus "Belarus" when we have "Republic of Moldova", speaking of which, why isn't the latter "Moldova (Republic of)" which is consistent with Iran and would at least put Moldova in the right place alphabetically. Why is the Kingdom of Belgium "Belgium" but we have "Netherlands (Kingdom of the)". And so on.

This comes across as if it was vibecoded in 30 minutes and little effort was put into polishing the data or the UI. In fact, I suspect I spend more time actually looking at the site _you_ created than you did before you posted it on Hacker News.

Again, this system can only work if there are at least _some_ people that are willing to upvote newbies and read new posts.

It sounds like what you want isn't a community with collaborative filtering, like Hacker News, but a newsletter with editors, like Slashdot for example.

If everyone votes purely on basis of the first letter of the username, to use your example, then the votes provide no useful information and you may as well abolish it.

And yes, I interpret “Abolish ICE” to mean “don't enforce federal immigration law”, because that's what people _usually_ mean when they say “abolish ICE”.

Technically, “abolish ICE” could also mean: “abolish ICE and replace it with an even more ruthless state secret police modeled after the East German Stasi” but in my experience that's _rarely_ what people who say “abolish ICE” mean. So I don't think you can fault me for assuming, in good faith, that's not what Andrew means when he calls for the abolition for ICE, either.

If Andrew feels I'm misconstruing his intent, then he's welcome to write a full blog post explaining his nuanced views on immigration, but he didn't do that. He only wrote two words: abolish. ICE. I think it's reasonable to assume that he means to literally abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, leaving the US without Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Your abortion example is a good one, so I will use it to clarify my point. When people say “abortion is murder!” they aren't just objecting to murder. They are asserting that abortion _is_ murder, actually: it's the political view that killing unborn foetuses is unjustified. The essential claim isn't “murder is bad”, but rather “abortion is bad”. So summarizing opposition to abortion as simply opposition to murder isn't accurate at all. It doesn't cut at the core of the objection.

The same situation exists with ICE. Modern societies grant the state a monopoly on violence, which the state delegates to officers who enforce the law of the land. When those officers use violence, it can be justified by virtue of them enforcing the monopoly on violence on behalf of the state, for the greater good. When a police officer shoots a gunman who attempts to kill civilians, few people would call that murder: after all, the killing is justified. Sometimes, law enforcement officers kill people when it's questionable whether it is justified. Labeling the killing as “murder” or “not murder” is then a political position: you aren't making a specific statement about murder (again, almost everyone agrees that murder is bad), but you're insisting that killing a person in such-or-such a situation is (not) justified.

So yes, insisting that the recent ICE killings of left wing activists constitute murder is a political statement: it's asserting that this ostensibly justified use of state violence was not justified in this case. Which is a point you can plausibly make, but you cannot insist it's not political, because determining which types of killings are justified and which are not is intrinsically a matter of publicy policy, i.e., political.

> Is it just politics you don't agree with that you don't want Andrew to express?

Ideally, I would not want Andrew to express any political views, at least not in his capacity of Zig project leader. I prefer open source projects that are maximally inclusive, which means not enforcing contributors to conform with particular political views.

Of course there is no law that says open source projects must be inclusive of political views, so you can create an open source project just for people who have the same political views as you do, but then I think the decent thing to do is at least be honest about it.

If Andrew thinks Zig is an American Democratic software project, he should clearly label it as such on ziglang.org. And then I also think Hacker News should ban him when he makes posts where he takes political stances, since Hacker News explicitly has a policy that opposes politics. If Andrew doesn't think Zig is just for American Democrats, he should refrain from making political posts on the Zig language blog. He can still go to his anti-ICE rally and post about it on his personal Bluesky account or whatever, but that at least makes it clear those are his personal political views, and they are not part of the Zig project.

Of course, I cannot enforce either of those things. They are just my personal preferences.