I mean the bigger issue is that cars and trucks aren't going away and EVs are clearly important, but the much more important problem is investing in public transit, especially in the United States. We don't need everyone to "transition" to EVs -- we need everyone to transition to trains.

This comment seems at odds with one you posted yesterday, which said that individual responsibility for climate change doesn't extend beyond the voting booth. But unless I'm misunderstanding this latest comment, it suggests that we individuals are wrong to want private transportation, that we should be happy with taking whatever public transportation is available and walking the rest of the way. Even when public transportation is expanded as you say it should be, that still won't be the same as taking a car all the way from one building to another. Assuming that the point is to put an end to the negative impact of private transportation on the climate, this suggests that we are in fact responsible for changing our lifestyle to address climate change. Am I misunderstanding?

Prioritization of public transit over EVs is a policy issue which is facilitated at the voting booth. We need fewer EV subsidies (or targeted to more important EV markets) and greater public investment in transit. I'm not saying that you shouldn't buy a new EV in favor of taking your city's crappy bus service and walking a mile in the rain. I'm saying that your city should invest in making the bus a better choice than your car so that you want to use it; society should set up the incentives accordingly.

As the saying goes, public transit succeeds not when the poor can afford the bus, but when the wealthy choose the bus.

Then I'm skeptical about whether public transit can actually succeed. Why would the wealthy ever choose the bus over taking their own vehicle all the way from point A to point B? Does public transit succeed according to that criterion in countries other than the US? Is it necessary to somehow force the wealthy to do what is less convenient for the individual?

If the bus is faster and more convenient, more people will use it. Get cars out of city centers and reduce parking, and increase transit access -- more tram and bus routes with priority access through traffic, separated cycle routes, metro and long distance rail, etc. In my home city of Amsterdam it works very well -- over half of all travel is by bike alone.

The idea of an individual carbon footprint was invented by oil companies to shift responsibility for climate change from corporations (the cause) to consumers (the victims). Your personal responsibility to address climate change begins and ends at the voting booth (direct action is also good if you really want to make a personal impact). Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

They aren't false.

Regardless, the main point (that it'll not affect paypal a jot while inconveniencing someone else) is still valid.

Alpine is small, stable, and built by professionals with a purpose in mind. I would not consider running anything else in production, and I run it on all of my devices -- servers, workstations, laptops, phone, SoCs, even my TV runs Alpine. It's an excellent distro and one of the few that I feel can fit entirely in my head.

At the only job I've had where Bazel was in use, we had a team of 4-5 engineers dedicated to maintaining Bazel for a larger team of about 25.

Bazel is a nightmare. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

I worked at a company where a DevOps team was 5 to support a team of 35. They hired someone incredibly talented, knowledgeable and driven for change. They shrunk in size and are still over capacity and could now be 2 only.

Don't look at headcount to gauge complexity, difficulty, etc.

What I've experienced is the larger the team the more likely to have dilution of ownership. The less ownership the less likely each person will spend the energy or fully understand solving root causes.

Oddly, I'd say headcount can often be a driver of complexity.

In two ways, one being that more people legit need a more complicated system. You want that so that they interact with the system, not with each other.

The other being a bit of a Parkinson's Law. That is specifically that you will expand work to fit the allocated time; but I posit that you will also expand work to fit the people doing it. So, more people pushing ideas into the codebase will keep more ideas in the codebase. Even if fewer would work.

Any build system is a nightmare when you don't understand it. I don't know what that team moved to Bazel from. I suppose it was Makefiles, and I'm sure if that's what the team was using, almost all of those 25 people did not understand them either.

What parts of Bazel were a nightmare? What problems were fixed by these 4-5 people that were previously impacting all 25 people routinely?

It will, if anything, cull the bottom performers. It's essentially an incremental improvement on a script which searches stack overflow for a query and copy/pastes the first result into your program. Having tried it on more interesting systems-level work it does little to nothing to augment productivity.

AI is not in and of itself an existential threat, and is unlikely to be one within our lifetimes. The singularity, in this sense, is not near, and state-of-the-art machine learning does not resemble general intelligence.

Focusing on the misuse of this tool by people is the most prudent worry to address.

The exact rate limit, to my understanding, is tuned by the moderators. So one of them presumably thought you were making some inflammatory comments and made a conscious choice to slow you down. Reach out to hn@ycombinator.com to find out more and make an appeal.

If you look back at the GPs comments you can see some that were flagged/closed recently, a few that were downvoted and also a good number of threads that turned into meta threads with others posters that get downvoted. So looks like someone who has been targeted for limiting or additional moderation.

Can you please tell me what the the "good number" is you're talking about?

I do not have time to regurgitate my own history, but I scrolled over it once and it does not seem as controversial as you're portraying it here.

E.g. I only see one flagged comment, how is that "some"?

You have 600 or so comments here so I only scrolled a 10ish pages, but I spotted at least one of your comments downvoted to the point of being grey, on each page. Sometimes more. That is pretty high, plus the recent flagged post. And now this thread has been flagged. Plus the meta threads.

Pick a random user, check out their comments and see how many of their posts are greyed out, for a comparison.

Have you made side accounts? That is another thing that seems to get people blocked or limited.

As other say, don't take it personally, and don't stress - there is more to life than hn!

"I do not have an email address" is not a reasonable state of being. The way you can resolve this is via email, and you should obtain one.

You should be apologizing to yourself. This stance, which I'm sure you see as reasonable (it's not), is directly causing you a problem, a problem that you're here asking for help to resolve (but it's already been flagged). You're free not to get an email address, but you're also the one rate limited to 5/day, so it seems the ball is in your court.

The idiom that comes to mind is "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

I'm sorry, I posted some questions about Hackernews, on Hackernews.

I do not see how I should suddenly become customer to some unrelated external services which could literally cause my phone to ring all day just in order to be entitled to ask some questions?

It seems you're escalating the tone here, which I do not intend to participate in.

But these aren't questions for the community, these are questions for the admins that actually run this place, and there's little to no guarantee they'd even see this post, whereas an email to them would get seen by them. Everyone else here has about as much power as you do to change your account to allow you to comment more.

If you believe your phone is going to ring all day because you have an email address, I'm not sure anyone here can help you. You may need a refresher on how phones work.

> But these aren't questions for the community,

The answers to the questions are of interest to the community so why not have them see them? :)

> these are questions for the admins that actually run this place, and there's little to no guarantee they'd even see this post, whereas an email to them would get seen by them.

If the admins dig deeply enough through comments inside threads to rate limit me, surely they will see a top-level thread.

And indeed: They saw the thread and replied. (dang is their name)

> If you believe your phone is going to ring all day because you have an email address, I'm not sure anyone here can help you. You may need a refresher on how phones work.

You skipped over the part where I said that nowadays it is impossible to get an email account without telling the provider your phone number.

They all want your phone number nowadays, they demand it during registration.

This website's tracking consent pop-up is unlawful: unticking each spyware service one at a time rather than a one-click opt-out is not permitted by the GDPR.

From the perspective of someone who generally writes far fewer comments than this, I find that this code has a number of comments which is well-justified due to the complexity of the subject, poor availability of external documentation describing the interface it implements, and the nature of the code. However, the code can be written in a manner which is still readable with fewer comments.

Here's a sample from the file:

    // For sprites, color 0 is transparency so don't draw anything.
    if color == 0 {
        continue;
    }

This comment is probably not necessary: it would be equally clear if it were written as something like the following:

    if color == SPRITE_COLOR_TRANSPARENT {
        continue;
    }

A few lines up is another comment:

    // Is this specific pixel not on the screen? We already check that x_pos is not off
    // the left side earlier, so only need to check that it's not off the right side.
    if x_pos + p >= 160 {
        continue;
    }

If the code were written with a constant, then it would only need to clarify why we don't check the left side here (the only non-obvious thing about the code), so:

    // Note: bounds testing on the left side is handled earlier
    if x_pos + p >= SCREEN_WIDTH {
        continue;
    }

One last example:

    // We want to iterate through 160 pixels to draw one scanline.
    for col in 0..160u8 {

No comment, similar level of readability:

    for col in ppu.iterscanlines() {

I like the changes but I think the original has merit too. Along with the comments it is documenting the parameters/bounds that apply to this device where they are actually being used, making the code a kind of documentation for others who want to implement similar things. Having these defined in constants elsewhere would require some back and forth if this "document" is used as a reference.

Well, I said upfront that the level of comments here is fine. Just offering a perspective on how it could still be good code with less. In general I think it's fine to expect a reading of the code to be paired with a reading of the documentation/specification; in the absence of such a resource for the GameBoy the comments here are well-justified. I would definitely add more constants, though, and I would anticipate that a second implementation which references this would start by re-defining all of the constants in its own code.

Most people will argue that this is nitpicking, however, I've learned something new today. Thank you.

Quite a difference in code readability to the point where the code becomes self-evident. Few people are able to reach a more verbose level of documentation, let alone make sure the code remains understandeable in the future.