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

cool to hear about more randomizers. I am not a great tetris player but I absolutely love the game. I put NES, 7-bag and my own take on randomizer (crap) in my online tetris-like experiment https://www.susmel.com/stacky/ (you can press c for more controls or h to see shortcuts)

One of my dream goals was to make a licensed low lag competitive game kind of like TGM, but I heard licensing is extremely cost-prohibitive so I kind of gave up on that goal. I remember I said to someone I was ready to pony up few tens of thousands for a license + cut, but reportedly it starts at an order of the magnitude higher.


He did us once with Javascript prophecy. Has this man no decency?? :)

Was there ever pretending? It was always face value from "seed" to "rounds" to "exit" - all words describing money movement.

That is a legit way of working on contribution. You fork, you work on the fork - if it's not junk then you issue a pull request. What's the deal with belittling and holier-than-thou moralizing?

I have nothing against forking ofc. I like it. But I really don’t like laziness when there is no contribution to original project - instead those codies make the project as their, in fact it is just a (poor) fork. The result is the mess. My first comment was about this behaviour.

Forking is nice when it’s nice.


Fun fact, Oscar winners don't fully own their statues since 1950. AMPAS reserves the right to buy it back for $1 if they want to sell it. Ownership of the statue is conditional, meaning it can't be freely sold or disposed of.

Same with the Emmy. It says it right on the bottom (along with a warning that only actual winners can be photographed holding it).

can it be rented out?

Imagine Sean Penn having to ask Zelensky for his oscar back.

"oh, I must have lost it. Since you're claiming it's worth one dollar, here's a fiver, keep the change"

I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan.

That was my thought as well. It's a dangerous rhetoric being displayed by USA. "We need this land for our security". Turns out, what if other powers start using the same rhetoric? Russia did it already for Ukraine, China might say "We need Taiwan for our security".. where does it stop and ultimately it leads absolutely nowhere good.


Diplomatic relationships are rarely about justice, because they are almost always about power and influence.

In fact, the US and its allies have been the only major powers advocating for a "rules-based international order." On the other side, you have Russia annexing Crimea in 2014, and China building artificial islands in the South China Sea to forcefully claim territory that isn't theirs under international law. Not to mention that all authoritarian states, by their very nature, are a clear violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines democracy and freedom of speech as basic human rights.

But at the same time, the US doesn't need a moral justification to sanction China over AI hardware. It is, as always, about power and influence.

The worrying part is that the US is losing its global influence by threatening an ally over Greenland. If they ever resort to military measures, they would lose all influence over the EU, and that would leave Taiwan in a very dangerous spot.


China already claims Taiwan, and has for decades; the only thing keeping it practically separate is uncertainty over the outcome in various dimensions if China tries to take it militarily. I don't think there's any doubt that if they were sure they could take it relatively bloodlessly and without significant repercussion, they would do so immediately.

The US recognizes Taiwan as part of China since the 70’s though its position is quite ambiguous! I found this document by the US congress that explains the history behind the rather bizarre situation Taiwan finds itself today: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12503

Nope. The US One China Policy (not to be confused with China's One China Principle) only "acknowledges" China's claim over Taiwan. The wording is intended to be vague so that each side can interpret the meaning according to their own interests (like China claiming "acknowledge" actually means "recognize").

You're agreeing with what I said. "Acknowledges" can be understood as "recognizes" but like I said, it's ambiguous intentionally (as you agreed).

> The US recognizes Taiwan as part of China ... though its position is quite ambiguous!

I wouldn't describe that position using the word "recognize". It is more accurate to use the official term "acknowledge" instead.


You're right, of course. What I'm saying is what happens if anyone with any lethal force proclaims they need territory which isn't theirs for their own security. Dangerous rhetoric and extremely dangerous precedent if this plays out.

One uses emulator while developing anyways. Try with C64 and VICE and join us at https://csdb.dk/

> One uses emulator while developing anyways.

Yes, but part of the joy is the anticipation of playing on a real device at the end.

> Try with C64 and VICE and join us at https://csdb.dk/

Thanks for the invitation! I used a C64 as my only computer in the late 1990s long past its prime, because my mother got a really good deal on a whole set with printer and disk drives and plenty of disks with software (mostly games, from magazines). However, I was still a bit annoyed by the limitations of the system. I guess, if I had had a forth disk, I might have felt different.

In any case, for personal reasons I don't want to explore the C64 more.

But I never had a GameBoy Advance nor a Wonderswan.


really cool! CSG: The Game!


yes

on a serious note, this recent-ish interview on AI is illuminating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8MhTFCs80


This isn't even remotely comparable.


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

Search: