471–480 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The literal translation for carbon fiber would be "Kohlefaser" and that is also used quite commonly.
I admit I'm not in any field that deals with materials a lot, but OP said "Kohlefaserverstärkter Kunststoff" (which I likely wrongly called "carbon fiber" in English), is "Kohlefaser" really the same? Maybe it is and I'm just ignorant about that.
The GP (G-G-G...P?) post seemed to be using the shorter expression, but as a shorthand for the longer (as most people do) in English but not in German, which may have caused some confusion.
But it's the same in both (all) languages: The shorter expression technically means just the reinforcing fibers; the actual material used to make stuff is technically called the longer expression; but in ordinary usage most people use the shorter expression to mean the longer one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also find your first point to be a truly indispensable tool. How else do you know what they call carbon fiber in German? [0] But the second is a touchy area. In fact, Wikipedia's co-founder recently wrote a blog post detailing how its neutral point-of-view policy has flopped, in the name of fighting false balance. [1] His examples are pretty embarrassing, but more important in that Google points human "Search Quali…
> How else do you know what they call carbon fiber in German? [0] > [0] Kohlenstofffaserverstärkter Kunststoff, of course. Well, it actually not that simple :) Kohlenstofffaserverstärkter Kunststoff[1] is carbon fiber reinforced polymer[2]. But it seems like carbon fiber is also used as a short hand for carbon fiber reinforced polymer. Similarly, Germans often call Kohlenstofffaserverstärkter Kunststoff just Karbon.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been reading HN for a while and never commented, but the translation thing is very close to my heart, what with learning Physics both in Polish and English at different stages of my life. So much so that I've made a dedicated tool for this: https://wikitranslator.github.io/ It uses Wikipedia's APIs to "click the language links" for you. It also displays short summaries of both languages' articles, so the trans…
You should make a Show HN out of that! Just wait a while (perhaps a couple weeks) for the hivemind caches to clear. See the tips at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22336638 , especially the one about adding a comment explaining how you came to work on this and what's different about it. If you do submit it, email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we might be able to help further. And welcome to the state change of HN…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"reddit is fun" on Android is a great app for it. Staying away from reddit more is good for you, too.
"infinity" is also a great alternative for android.
Relay was my favorite while I was on Android. On iOS now, Narwhal is my go-to.
old.reddit exclusively on the web, via 'Old Reddit Redirect' extension on Firefox.
If someone asked me to critique the UX of Wikipedia, the first two things I’d point out would be that I almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) and that when paragraphs are that wide they become harder to read (especially when they snake around floated images). Not changing for 10 years, watching as some trends fade and others become law-of-the-land, and then making two changes…
> I almost never use the left hand side bar (and I have a feel almost no one does) The left sidebar has two killer features for me: 1. Finding canonical translations for technical terms. You need to know what the standard way to translate "hardware acceleration" or "differentiable manifold" is in French? Go to the wikipedia page and hover over the language switcher link in the left sidebar. Done. This has become one…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and that when paragraphs are that wide they become harder to read Yes, reading Wikipedia on a 27” iMac is comical. Anything larger than 1000px wide is entering eye gymnastics territory. Ideally it should be around 600/700
You are allowed to change the width of the browser window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The research on line length is not new and it's certainly not BS. I'm sure that even you read better at 70 chars/line than 200.
Dan Luu has repeatedly failed to find any good sources for this claim: https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1115707741102727168 .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just rereading WP:CANCER again after the latest donation banner took a full screen scroll and asked me for an email when I pressed what I assumed was the dismiss nag button: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has...
rereading ... again is redundant.
Rereading = reading for the nth time, n > 1
Rereading again = reading for the nth time, n > 2 (as you've already reread at least once)
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Albert_Einstein
Zoomed in at 150% it looks really nice. It also allows to justify the text and has a dark mode.
Just the performance could be a little bit better.