grgbrn

6 ms·

1.
by grgbrn 1y ago
Yes, I think it's a very ambigious term. My problem with your definition is that it doesn't take into account the reality of connectivity at the time (at least in my experience of the early 90s) - not a whole lot of machines had I
2.
by grgbrn 1y ago
Indeed, I was there, I know. As a starving college student, using QModem for part of it. > that's not the same thing. I think your definition of "connect to the internet" make sense today, but would be ridiculously narrow
3.
by grgbrn 1y ago
Oh I wasn't trying to reverse-engineer his network from that comment, just saying that this was a thing that was possible and that people did at the time. I agree it's highly unlikely that the AT was running slirp. Wikipedia says
4.
by grgbrn 1y ago
Maybe your association would be different / the terminology would make more sense if you were online in the early 90s? BUT, it was definitely possible to do what you're describing with some combination of a dialup shell account, a
5.
by grgbrn 1y ago
That's precisely what QMODEM does? What do you think it does?
6.
by grgbrn 2y ago
Can you do anything aside from low-effort shitposting?
7.
by grgbrn 2y ago
So you're here telling people who were actually using these APIs that we're wrong to be upset, because LLMs? Awesome, super helpful, thanks LLMs require data, as I'm sure you know. This is locking up what was previously an in
8.
by grgbrn 2y ago
Before he was a food writer he worked in a number of fairly high-end restaurants in Boston (which he talks about occasionally on his Youtube channel), and then he opened his own restaurant in 2017ish. Not sure how that's "not a ch
9.
by grgbrn 3y ago
Uhh.. damning praise. I think that can be rephrased as: "It's pretty, but despite being almost the simplest thing you can imagine, it still has ridiculous, unnecessary usability problems"
10.
by grgbrn 3y ago
Same! At first I thought it might be a Firefox problem, but it's equally broken in Chrome. Predictably it's a React site, using some widget library (MUI) that is going out of it's way to provide a text input that is inferior
11.
by grgbrn 3y ago
Seconded! I would highly recommend NTS. Their archive is great, dives into almost anything you can think of
12.
by grgbrn 3y ago
I didn't downvote this post, but I don't find it hard to see why someone would: * making incredibly general hand-wavy statements implying vscode is always perfectly lag-free and emacs is terrible * generally condescending and host
13.
by grgbrn 3y ago
> VS Code in its current state has no perceptible input latency on modern hardware, easily verifiable. "easily verifiable"?!!? This is a ridiculous statement - lots of VSCode responsiveness is dependent on which language serve
14.
by grgbrn 4y ago
Zelle doesn't support all banks - the call to action on their home page is even "See if your bank offers Zelle". My credit union, sadly, does not. So it's not really comparable to EU IBAN transfers.
15.
by grgbrn 5y ago
Title seems very incorrect. First issue of Wired was 1993, not 1998. The URL makes it look like this is from 1998, so definitely not from the first issue.
16.
by grgbrn 5y ago
Zero sympathy, fuck this guy
17.
by grgbrn 6y ago
Also Firefox. I wonder which browsers work?
18.
by grgbrn 8y ago
Not just yiddish, it's also common slang in many parts of the US to mean a very stupid or incompetent person. So yeah, terrible branding IMHO
19.
by grgbrn 11y ago
I'm not sure how you square "If you can't keep up then don't" with what sounds (to me) a lot like "I have an idea that I want to implement, but only if I don't have to learn anything new" To try to be
20.
by grgbrn 14y ago
I always assumed it was to avoid card swipe fees. Margins at small restaurants can be incredibly thin, so a percent or two off each transaction could make a big difference.
21.
by grgbrn 14y ago
It's a complex topic, and I'm no expert. But based on all of the contradictory studies out there, I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it sound. For example, a new study done in Sweden was in the press recently which sounds
22.
by grgbrn 17y ago
Interesting, that's the first dictionary i've ever seen that lists it - Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Websters all claim it's not a word. (As well as google - "Did you mean: minimalist") In any case, all three are adjectives with what appe
23.
by grgbrn 17y ago
Am I the only one irked by the use of the non-word 'minimalistic', when the shorter 'minimal' or 'minimalist' is what is really meant? It seems like a serious blow to one's minimalist cred. :)