Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | B-Con's commentslogin

I'm with you.

Australia calls December "summer". If climate patterns changed and shifted our weather patterns by a month, we'd shift our season vernacular to match.

Seasons refer to the climate we experience. They're a human experience, not calendar slot.


The Noongar calendar from the south west of Western Australia is, of course, a much better fit to the local climate. We are just starting Djeran, with probably the best weather of the year, then it'll be Makuru, with by far the most rain and plenty of rainbows, and coldest temperatures. Djilba is when it just starts warming up again and at the end of Djilba is wildflower season which is probably the most beautiful time in the region. Then it's Kambarang around October November which is perfect temperature again, and then we are into Birak which is "first summer" and Bunuru "second summer". Obviously it's linked to food availability rather than the weather but it does fit far better than the British four seasons.


> I've had to spend week and a half battling Gmail daily email account limits sending batches of 500 emails just to notify people in her address book, receiving hundreds of responses. Her memorial was attended by hundreds of people.

I love this story, because I had the same experience. When my dad passed, I had the same 500 email limitation, and had to send out multiple waves of emails through Gmail. He was loved by so many people!


Yawing seems like it must be adventurous, the contagious part not so much.

Even the mention of a yawn can trigger it.

Perhaps we are almost always in a state of needing a yawn, but the trigger is seldom met, and seeing or hearing about it is enough to make our brain go "oh yeah I forgot about that".

Perhaps yawning is actually underdeveloped and an ideal human would yawn at regular intervals without any prompting.


Not so much if you think about if from security point of view of our ancestors. Those 1-2s if we talk about proper yaw you are defenseless and clueless, its actually pretty dangerous during say high speed drive on tightly packed highway (as in every single car in all lanes goes too fast to handle any major driver's mistake). But its great for equalizing pressure in ear via eustach tube without the need to block & blow your nose, something both mountaineers/paragliders and divers are well aware of.

Same goes for sneezing, actually that's even worse for driving, I literally don't see anything for a second at least. Sometimes can be blocked, sometimes not so much.


I know this guy from his videos over the years on hiking topics, like how to safely purify water with the minimum fuel and how to pack calorie efficient food.

His videos are incredibly well researched, very in-depth, and absolutely zero fluff. Very much feels like his cycle is to get intrigued by a topic, spend a year deep diving into everything that's published, extrapolate what he can from there, then summarize it in a 1 hr video.


Any time an app has bizarre functionality gap on iOS, I assume it's because of Apple's anti-consumer bullshit app restrictions.

No idea if that's actually what's going on, but Apple thinks of their devices as appliances and hates when apps offer pro-customer features.


No. The Signal developers opted out of iOS's backup and export features.


I have no idea why, but I would bet it's because it was sending stuff to Apple unencrypted.


It's because Signal has some unhealthy obsession with "security" and does not want to recipient of the communication to ever be able to export messages in plain text.


I used to have that strip on a t-shirt as a teen.


So if the top 10% is $2m net worth, then what's the 1%? Are we supposed to mentally extrapolate?

I hate when only part of the criteria are provided. Arrives like this need a table. If they don't have it, it calls into question whether they should be writing the article.


This is exactly what I've said for a decade.

When people talk about the 1% they almost always mean the 0.1%>


It hails from when family lines were important, and you can practically only have one line reflected in a name. Unsurprisingly, most societies considered the male's name to be the dominate lineage of interest, although that doesn't hold true 100% of the time.


> you can practically only have one line reflected in a name

Not true at all. You can trivially have two family names in a full legal name. In fact many cultures do exactly that to this day.

Also worth noting that the male's name being preferentially propagated makes a lot of sense in a society where the best off frequently inherited their vocation from their fathers.


What societies?

Keyword being "practically". Just because there is an alternative doesn't mean society will adjust.

And hyphenation isn't a solution, it only works for one generation.


> Just because there is an alternative doesn't mean society will adjust.

"It isn't practical to do" and "society at large didn't go this direction" are very different statements.

Hyphenation is two names in a trench coat. Maintaining two names indefinitely works just fine as long as you discard rather than endlessly compound. Presumably the only requirement is that it be straightforward to trace any given lineage.

The traditional approach is for women to keep their maternal name and discard their paternal name on marriage while men do the opposite. But of course any scheme could work, up to and including each person arbitrarily choosing which name to discard (not sure how they decide on ordering in that case).

Another historical approach is the Foo Barson, Baz Fooson (Barson) approach. That scheme treats the male and female lines as being entirely separate so it doesn't quite match what you're after but it was quite practical.


Preserving more than one lineage and providing a cohesive family name isn't practically easy, and society did not go that direction, and that likely isn't a coincidence.

Discarding names doesn't preserve lineage. If you need a book to trace the names, then the point of using a name for lineage has failed.

> The traditional approach is for women to keep their maternal name and discard their paternal name on marriage while men do the opposite

It sounds like this scheme is "men keep one name lineage, women keep another".

Which, IMO, has the practical drawback of not identifying the current family unit. Lineage was important, but so was gathering all folks together into a household. When taxes, religious ceremony, etc. occurred, there was one household name on the roster responsible. This was particularly important in societies where men held certain rights for the household.


For me, I despise having different abstractions get crossed.

I expect my media app, ie. YouTube, to know what I watch from the media app. YouTube knows about YouTube.

My operating system, ie. Roku, should not know about what's happening inside a given app. ie. Roku does not know about YouTube.

When they start crossing layers, that greatly upsets me.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

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

Search: