201–210 of 329 posts
That basically covers every tool.. I don't know what "generate HTML from text" means, HTML _IS_ text.. so.. notepad is disqualified too I guess? Since that generates HTML files from text if you save the file with the .html extension ?
This is one of those important events in life where you realise that sometimes those who hold seniority over you aren't necessarily as smart as you are. This experience will help you to cultivate a healthy disrespect for authority. We all go through something like this at some point. The best thing to do is to find some sort of constructive way to channel your experience. One path I would suggest is to consider launc…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Sorry, the rules clearly state that you can't browse websites that promote hacking or other criminal behaviour, like hackernews. It doesn't matter that HN isn't actually a criminal website, we must always unquestioningly follow rules."
> "Sorry, the rules clearly state that you can't browse websites that promote hacking or other criminal behaviour, like hackernews. It doesn't matter that HN isn't actually a criminal website, we must always unquestioningly follow rules." It's childish and immature, in a competition , to question the rules only after you have been caught breaking them. I never said rules should not be questioned, I said that you shou…
How is it childish and immature? They were clearly following the spirit of the competition.
Furthermore there is no indication anywhere, unless I missed it, that they were cognizant of that specific rule prior to the competition. Perhaps they saw "no template generators" and didn't pay attention to the examples. Even if they specifically knew that GitHub was mentioned, they could have reasonably assumed that the rule specifically referred to its tenplating features and that they were fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it is kind of irrelevant, because we don't know anything about the process that led to GitHub being included on the list. Could be lack of technical knowledge as you pointed out, but could as easily be an admin problem, or any other operational problems with clearing submissions, or something else.
> it is kind of irrelevant, because we don't know anything about the process that led to GitHub being included on the list. The inclusion of GitHub, as written, is clearly either a mistake or the product of ignorance. The students revealed that they spoke to the person who'd judged their submission, and that the judge doubled-double that they thought GitHub was a solely a temptation engine. > We were finally able to…
Would it be more prudent to list "Github Pages" as the named example instead of Github? Possibly, being more specific is never a bad thing. However, the organizers deemed it appropriate to just prohibit all of Github for one reason or another, perhaps for sake of brevity since they only have so much time to judge all the entries.
Whatever the reasoning, the question is ultimately irrelevant. This is a contest, with rules to simulate an artificial environment under which the contestants agree to compete. If the organizers say "no Github", then no Github it shall be; if you don't like it you don't have to enter and compete.
[1]: https://pages.github.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The words "quote", "quotation", "mark", etc. do not appear anywhere within the HN Guidelines[1], to include any rules regarding quotation marks (there aren't any). To call out someone's behaviour is not name-calling as defined in the HN Guidelines[1]. Did I call the author an idiot or a moron or anything to that effect? No, I called out his behaviour as ignorant and arrogant, and called him a kid because he is a high…
> The words "quote", "quotation", "mark", etc. do not appear anywhere within the HN Guidelines[1], to include any rules regarding quotation marks (there aren't any). No, but they do appear in the two links I gave—which describe the sort of behavior that HNers are expected to observe, regardless of whether it's written in a mod comment or on a mod-controlled page titled "Hacker News Guidelines". If you think that's an…
"GitHub IS NOT the industry standard for hosting code collaboration and version control through Git, an expected tool for anyone entering the industry and a priceless skill for any aspiring developer." Is this a conflation of Git and GitHub?
Practically speaking Github is Git. It's the industry standard. In the last 10 years, I've not worked at one place that didn't use github.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You only use the template engine if you go through github.io or if you look at .md files in the UI. So you are not even «technically» using the template engine part of Github. However root commenters sentiment is still very valid, the sooner you realize how many people who are not particularly smart also work in this business the sooner :D Developers are starting to become a pretty decent average representation of th…
> So you are not even «technically» using the template engine part of Github. The rule didn't say some parts of Github was okay, the rule said Github was not allowed. To not disqualify a team that broke the rules is unfair to those teams that read the rules and said "Okay, let's work without Github". If you want to rescind a rule you have to do it before you are caught breaking it, not after.
The rule is clearly written with the mistaken belief that GitHub is a templating engine. The person that judged their submission also confirmed their misunderstanding.
I'm not sure what type of competitions you've been a part of, but I have seen several where the rules are changed or re-interpreted on the fly because someone pointed out an error in the instructions or rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps this is adequate encouragement for them NOT to join the work force? Why is being an employee and following arbitrary rules set by less intelligent people than oneself the default way to be a productive citizen? Smart kids should start a business, and when this inevitably fails, try again. We no longer need an army of rule-worshippers like during the industrial revolution. Learning to reconcile oneself to repe…
"Workforce" applies to both employers and employees, and employers are still beholden to regulations, contracts, and other requirements mandated from customers and regulatory bodies.
Furthermore, mindless rule-following played a rule in essentially every bad human-caused historical event.
Even in checklist-heavy professions like air transport, lots of emphasis is placed on interrogating and understanding those rules thoroughly. I mean even lawyers, the profession that’s ABOUT rules, talk all day long anout the interpretation of and reason for each rule.
The key to the future is people who take ownership of problems, rather than rigidly offloading all cognition to a list of diktats concocted by someone of dubious ability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Internet also allows such behavior so really it shouldn't have been allowed to use the Internet either. A reasonable person would realize the key part is "Template engine" and would think they are okay as long as they avoid those. They did avoid that, and still got disqualified. That is why it isn't reasonable
And such a person after being disqualified should learn their lesson to read and understand the rules thoroughly. The rule in question even distinguishes between "Template engine websites" and "sites that generate HTML"; if you refuse to read beyond the first comma you are being disingenuous let alone being ignorant. As an aside, "the internet" doesn't automagically generate HTML for you. Unless I missed a memo and w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you are not even «technically» using the template engine part of Github. The rule didn't say some parts of Github was okay, the rule said Github was not allowed. To not disqualify a team that broke the rules is unfair to those teams that read the rules and said "Okay, let's work without Github". If you want to rescind a rule you have to do it before you are caught breaking it, not after.
> The rule didn't say some parts of Github was okay, the rule said Github was not allowed. The rule is clearly written with the mistaken belief that GitHub is a templating engine. The person that judged their submission also confirmed their misunderstanding. I'm not sure what type of competitions you've been a part of, but I have seen several where the rules are changed or re-interpreted on the fly because someone po…
Yeah, and if they pointed it out before the competition ended, that would count as "on the fly".
Flagging it as erroneous, ambiguous or similar after you are disqualified for breaking it is something I've never seen before, and I guess neither have you.