Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | uranusjr's commentslogin

In the OG RFC 2396, each _path segment_ can specify parameters similar to query parameters, but using a semicolon to separate them to the main segment value instead of question mark. This has effects e.g. when calculating relative URLs. This is now obsolete, but many URL-parsing libraries have an API for that for compatibility.


This happened just last year IIRC in Korea. Nothing was in serious danger (except maybe some travel schedules). A comment already described the mechanism and why that’s not really a thing to worry about.


Because merging into main better exposes the proposal to a more diverse crowd and attracts needed feedback. Especially when you’re managing multiple proposed features, it’s not viable for a mass of users to check out and test those from their individual branches. Without merging fast, you can only gather opinions from people actively reviewing patches, which are a far more minority group and likely to be biased.


Forwarding itself is trivial, just ~5 lines in __getattr__. The difficulty comes when you need to type check the thing. Fixing that would require some special treatment on the type system side and not really doable with a third party library.


It's a little more complicated than that if you want to forward some, but not all methods to the delegated object, or have multiple objects you want to delegate to. If you just have __getattr__ delegate everything to one other objects, there isn't much benefit over inheritance.


They offer educational content. From limited consumption I would not rate it as high quality. More like acceptable I guess.


> The few people who do need it every day can probably work it out for themselves.

People are much less sensitive to their own body odor than you may assume. Please default to taking a shower before you go to public places unless you have very concrete evidence otherwise.


I don’t know the exact history, but the rest of the metric system is designed with a base unit and decimal derivatives. Assuming we want to keep the day length consistent (I can’t imagine a system being practically useful otherwise), we’d have decidays, centidays, etc. and not have hours, minutes, and seconds in the system at all. A system with days, decidays (2.4 hours), millidays (1.44 minutes), and microdays (0.0864 seconds) doesn’t seem bad to me at all, I’m sure people would come up with a good name for 10 microdays for daily use (0.864 seconds).


kDay, MDay, etc could work in space but they don't fit well with the length of the year. As long as we live on Earth we cannot escape from our planet taking about 365 days to orbit the Sun. History proved that it's convenient to have the same event (let's say start of spring) falling at the same date every year. Hence all the refactoring of calendars and leap years.

I wonder how we would settle that matter if we'll ever be able to travel fast between planets. Each city had its own time zone before trains required us to sync them because of conflicting railroad timetables. So we ended up with the current timezones. With planets, each one would have its day length and number of days in the year, maybe even inconstant seasons in the case of precession of perihelion or double star systems. I'd say we'd settle on local time and a common space time but who knows.


I never thought about this. And actually never bothered to read up on the proposed terminology. Only thing I always assumed was that the first draft of all terms is not 100% what we use today. Especially because it comes from France. But that’s only assumptions. But yes I think you are right with the naming convention.


10 microdays -> a decamicroday -> a demiday -> a dem


I think the parent’s logic is the other way around: the rule of law isn’t overwhelmingly relevant in China, so it’s no surprise the VPN law isn’t enforced. You may want to contend if China has the rule of law, but that’s the premise in the parent message, not the conclusion, so you need to use something else to raise objections toward it.


I’m pretty sure they started put as the exact numbers and were just shortened eventually for convenience. This kind of compound word shortening happens all the time in all languages, it’s just Korean happens to have it for numbers, not particularly related to the numeric system as suggested.


I have this done to me a lot and honestly don’t feel a thing. People don’t really care about other people’s coding styles anyway (except they all suck); the thing got done, everyone got credit. I guess everyone feels differently.


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

Search: