Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

news.ycombinator.com

291–300 of 344 posts

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#291
post #28

I just had an argument over IRC with a stranger on the internet last week. We're still out there. I thought the humor on this site hadn't aged well, but this one got me: :( Turn that frown upside down! ):

I know everything is logged but I basically quit using irc when tons of channels started having bots that would log EVERYTHING in a room to public urls.

But it is really cool that I can read channel logs from events, like 9/11.

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#293
post #132
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a few years ago now… it’s probably up to hunter19 at least.

* At least 1 capital letter is required * At least 1 number is required * At least 1 symbol is required These days it's probably 'Hunter2024!'

Hunter is already a symbol to MAGA world

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#294
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most famous quotes was about a server that is online and pings, but the sysadmin doesn't know anymore where it physically is.

Happened to me recently when moving. Couldn't find one of my zigbee temperature sensors, but it was still reporting information diligently, so it had to be somewhere in the house. Took about 6 months before I found it.

You didn't set each room on fire until you found it?

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#295
post #260
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For $100+/mo you can easily have someone manage that.

Easily said when it's not your $100/mo for something that no longer interests you.

I was taking this comment into account

> and putting on a few ads (ethical, non-intrusive, etc.) can net you passive $100+/mo.

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The older I get the less useful I think this distinction between "official" and "unofficial" is. "Officially" King Charles can dissolve the UK parliament, but "unofficially" he can't. Power is power and we know it when we see it. So yes I would call being banned or having your language limited by major global platforms "censorship", despite the fact that officially they're just private organisations.

You're just saying you only care about some people's rights and not others. Part of the 1a and the general concept of freedom is that you don't have to put up with people saying stupid shit everywhere, such as in your own home.

"My own home" and "twitter" are very different in scope.

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#297
post #229
post #125

What a shame. IRC is one of the few protocols left of the early Internet that hasn't been aggressively commercialized and colonized by corporate interests, and this is just another nail in the coffin. Often times I wonder why basically _everything_ must be on the Web, and if all that historical baggage and complexity is really necessary, or even worth it at all.

>I wonder why basically _everything_ must be on the Web NAT. You can thank NAT for making the internet far worse.

That's right. The death of P2P is in many ways thanks to NAT. How reliable is hole punching these days? Where is the activity in the peer to peer space today?

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#298
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Turn that frown upside down" is a way of saying - don't be sad, be happy. Instead of having the corners of your mouth point down (frown), have them point up (smile). The joke is that if you move the eyes to the other side of the mouth, it remains a frown. Expectation :( becomes :) Subversion :( becomes ):

It's a very American expression. In British culture a frown refers to a forehead expression, not a mouth expression.

How interesting - I'm British, and I got the joke immediately. Yet, I'd hardly move my mouth if someone asked me to put on a frown. I'd never really thought about that one before.

Re: Tell HN: Bash.org is no more

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just saying you only care about some people's rights and not others. Part of the 1a and the general concept of freedom is that you don't have to put up with people saying stupid shit everywhere, such as in your own home.

"My own home" and "twitter" are very different in scope.

How? What about a bar? A stadium? Is it just the number of people to you, then? If I can pack enough people who agree with me into a field, do I now own that field?

You either agree that people who own things get to decide how those things are used, or you think that people don't get to own things. There's no "well, a lot of people use this thing" exception to property ownership.

Or, I guess you could try to nationalize the space since so many people use it, but I'm guessing "as you get older" any form of government is objectionable, despite this being exactly what you seem to want.

Post reply on HN