Is this a typo or total misunderstanding? In this article:, the author said "FAANG is Facebook, Apple, Amazon, "LinkedIn" (Wrong! it should be Netflix) and Google. ..." Frankly, if someone wants to give a "hiring (software developer) guide" but does not even know what FAANG is, I seriously doubt how good this guide could possibly be.
This is a trivial mistake. Many people outside of HN haven't even heard "FAANG", much less what it means. A lot of very smart people commit such trivial mistakes all the time.
I haven't gone through this guide, but judging through other comments, it isn't that bad (some even praised it).
The comment is a bit over the top, but the people engaged in this "zombie" behavior are behaving terribly and their self-centered behavior creates obstacles and frustrating delays for everyone else.
They also present a clear danger in spaces that are shared with cyclists (for example) in the same way a cyclist does if he rides without care for auto traffic in the street. I usually don't think of violence, but "zombies" in the shared cyclist paths come close to making me consider it sometimes. They're a danger to themselves and others.
Depends on what the data have to say. What fraction of pedestrian-cyclist collisions/incidents are the result of "zombie" pedestrians? How many per person-mile traveled? How do these compare to the same figures for drunk driving?
For me it is the notion that these boondoggles contribute to the normalization of walking in a public space oblivious to your surroundings; pandering to what is for a good percentage of people downright addictive behaviour detrimental to their own mental health.
It's as if the government stimulated smoking rather than aim for a society where smoking is exceptional and not accepted in public spaces.
While actually reading articles is considered a faux pas here on HN, I took the liberty of opening it up and ctrl-fing shark. Looks like they're not in there.
Minor typos in the article: In using the word "Horse" to show Chinese character evolution, the "Regular" is marked from 220 AD to 907 AD. As a matter of fact, that kind of characters were almost the "standard" in Chinese before Chinese government simplified many words around 1950. Even now, the Republic of China (a.k.a. Taiwan) still recognizes the "Regular" characters as the standard. Among Chinese people in the world, it it also known as the "Traditional" characters.
It’s funny because even in Chinese there’s widespread disharmony with respect to “complicated” (繁體字/繁体字) or “regular” (正體字/正体字) script, as opposed to “simplified” script (簡體字/简体字). (Left-hand side phrase is in traditional/complicated script, while right-hand side is in simplified, for comparison).
Even many of the “regular” characters have been simplified. Consider 吃 and 喫—they both mean to eat, but the one with fewer strokes became really the only modern choice to use (however, Japanese still uses the old variant). Another common one is a simplification of the first symbol for Taiwan (臺灣). 台 is often in used of place of 臺.
Off the top of my head, the only place I can recall the 喫 character appearing is in the word 喫茶店 (coffee / tea shop). To eat Japanese would use the 食べる or 召し上がる. After referring to a dictionary, there is a word 喫する，but it's not common (as in I don't recall ever hearing or learning this word) and means more generally consume by mouth as in drink / eat / smoke. Yes, the Chinese 喫 means eat, but no the meaning is not exactly the same and not used with the frequency of the word eat 食べる or 召し上がる.
Conversely, 食 also means "eat" in Chinese, but is now used almost exclusively in nouns like 食物 (food) or 食堂 (dining hall). The Chinese character inventory is simply too large to keep all possible uses, especially across different languages.
食 is still being used everyday in Cantonese as a verb. Granted there are some who classifies Cantonese as a different language from Mandarin, as there are many differences between the two such as this example.
Right—I was only writing about the character form. 食べる is used to mean to eat, but as far as raw characters are concerned, Japanese doesn’t use 吃 but rather 喫, the non-simplified form.
Apparently there is a use for 吃 in Japanese, 吃 is a sound used to represent a tile being discarded in a game, in compounds such as 吃驚, to be surprised. I think this compound is also used in Mandarin with the same meaning. Quick check of my Chinese dictionary indicates yes, they are a shared character compound / meaning.
Tangentially related question: do Chinese website use higher font size (especially for traditional script) ? I find those character hardly readable on hackernews at default font size.
Yes for the most part, just check out weibo.com baidu.com xinhuanet.com for example, but its still possible to read at hn size, just not that comfortable.
"longform" chars, like 臺 are typically used in formal writing, like official government docs [marriage lics, passports, etc]. There are also the counterfeit resistant "banker's" number chars used in official docs too [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerals]
I think you expose yourself a bit too much. With this information, people would know who you are. At this point, I don't think you would like your boss/colleagues know you are asking this question here.
But 115-strain is not the strain mentioned in this study, isn't it? So your point of bringing up this product is??!!
I meant, isn't one major point of this study is "not all probiotics are the same and finally someone found one is actually very helpful to new born babies"?
