They may not be aesthetics you find cool, but clearly they appeal to a large number of others.

    If you load an issue page, you'll see 1 failed request to:
    
        /project/product/issues/
    
    And sure, that's what you care about, but consider the working requests to:
    
        /in-product-messaging/copilot-budget-request-banner
        /in-product-messaging/code-scanning-ai-findings-preview-banner
        /github-copilot/chat
        /_private/browser/stats
        

Polly is now on a growing list of libraries that are open source in name but no longer in spirit.

It isn't quite asking you to fill in a Google Forms doc for the source, but it is demanding payment if the compiled code is downloaded via package manager rather than the source manually downloaded.

As an alternative there is already a wrapper of Polly, Microsoft.Extensions.Resilience, and this fee apparently doesn't require payment if you're only using a library via a wrapper.

Strategically I don't understand this move, at $20/mo I can't imagine this will raise enough for the collection hassle to be worth it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49371576

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

You'd expect one or two of these things to slip through by mistake, but so many indicates it was a bizarre but deliberate design decision?

Some games just impact me in a way that others don't, and I rarely go back to games for that reason. Another example is that I've probably spent longer thinking about Thomas Was Alone than I actually spent playing it, it's a very short game that had a tremendous impact on me.

Deus Ex was the right game at just the right time, and somehow the sequels never recaptured that magic. For me, a large part of that was precisely the promise the game had, even if upon technical breakdown it didn't really deliver on those promises. The idea that you were affecting and interacting with the world. The idea that you had a full gamut of options of how to achieve a mission. These were promises that weren't well kept, but they kept the imagination alive.

    /project/product/issues/

    /in-product-messaging/copilot-budget-request-banner
    /in-product-messaging/code-scanning-ai-findings-preview-banner
    /github-copilot/chat
    /_private/browser/stats
    

It's absurd that I have dozens of repos, many with GH Actions that run CI, test and then package and push to prod/package managers, and haven't paid GH anything.

Except, according to the linked paper, the answer to the question is 420.

I got to 420 too, but only by ignoring almost all clues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49271594

A puzzle where nearly all clues are badly defined or irrelevant is not really a puzzle.

My issue with this particular puzzle was the ambiguity of that particular clue, it's as if it got re-written or badly translated, because clue 13 as written carries no information.

white, blue, yellow, and is otherwise undefined.

But we know from [1], [2], [4], [5] and [11], that the order must be:

A, B, C, D, E or A, B, E, D, C.

Which makes C either the older 12 year old or the 35 year old.

The key this is that D can't be a 12 year old without A being in slot 2, but A can't be in slot 2 because slot 2 is South Africa and A is Morocco.

Trying to reach the shoes + Vanuatu clue is a complete waste of time, paying any attention to shoes or clothing is a waste of time, it feels like there ought to be a way to narrow it down to one of those two configurations, but the clothing is too ambiguous, the shoes end up irrelevant.

What a frustrating puzzle, where half the clues are seemingly redundant.

    Question: Strangers A, B, C, D, and E line up from youngest on the left to oldest on the right. Their clothing
    colors and shoe colors all differ, and they come from five different regions.
    Known facts:
    1. A is from Morocco.
    2. D is five years older than B.
    3. E is older than A.
    4. C stands next to D.
    5. A stands next to B.
    6. The person in teal shoes is not adjacent to the person from Vanuatu.
    7. One twelve-year-old wears yellow shoes.
    8. The person in orange shoes wears white clothing.
    9. The person in blue clothing is from Chile.
    10. The youngest person wears red shoes.
    11. Counting from the right, the fourth person comes from South Africa.
    12. E wears yellow clothing.
    13. The person in green shoes does not wear multicolored clothing.
    14. Two people are twelve years old, ordered by birth month.
    15. One adult is thirty-five years old, and that age is sixteen less than the combined ages of the other four.
    If you multiply every possible age C might have, what number do you obtain?

Nowhere is "multicoloured" defined, are we to assume it should be treated as a colour and implied that someone else must be wearing "multicoloured clothing"? Because strictly that doesn't logically follow, and it ought to be phrased as "The person in green shoes is not the person wearing multicoloured clothing" if that is the case.

This is an extremely hard logic puzzle, especially since it's revealed at the end that there are multiple solutions.

I'd expect anyone to struggle unless armed with prolog.