Though programmers may prefer base two (10) or base twelve-and-four (10).

To explain: control-shift-u allows entering a Unicode character by its hexadecimal code. This presumably depends on the Input Method Editor (IME) in use, which is something I've never fully understood, but this seems to work widely across different desktop environments (Xfce, KDE) and display servers (Xorg, Wayland).

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.