Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

css-tricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#211

Post by emsixteen »

hunter2_ wrote: post #184
emsixteen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a lot there are a lot

There's no way "there's a lot" is a contraction of "there is a list of a lot" which is what you're implying based on the way this particular thread has evolved. Also, your example is ambiguous because "lot" is a singular noun (you wouldn't use "are" if the object is a parking lot, for example) but if you're truncating a longer phrase like "a lot of widgets" then "a lot" is modifying a plural noun (you'd definitely us…

Please tell me what else it's a contraction of. :)

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#212

Post by CRConrad »

867-5309 wrote: post #210
CRConrad wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious) If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note. > so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious) The actual question, OTOH, wa…

>If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note. unsure how this little solipsism bolsters your argument or who you're trying to convince. I still contest that it is not the same question. "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's…

> "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got.

Let me direct your attention to:

>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

Where you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?". So...

> "Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense.

...still stands.

> why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing?

To illustrate what was actually being answered; do try to keep up. And, hey... Who introduced the mixed tenses?

> you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless.

Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?

> the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense

If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".

> I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin

Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

> - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment.

Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.

> you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey'

Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... Ate the 'p' and of course never entered the 'l' in 'reply'. When will I learn not to post to HN on that fucking contraption?

> and 'wich',

My bad.

> plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,

Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!? Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#213

Post by CRConrad »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #182
rchaud wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Balaji is more interested in having SaaS create their own Ministry of Information to do their PR instead of needing to rely on journalists who seem to be generally unfriendly to him.

He made a very early call on Covid being a serious threat and promoted masking. Recode then wrote a piece about "Tech bros too afraid to shake hands" and since then his relationship with US media has deteriorated: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228447944287932416

Given that the Boing Boing post linked above references doxing journalists (and stuff "contravening the Geneva Convention"!) from 2012-13-14, I don't think that Covid tweet is what started it.

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#214

Post by CRConrad »

unixbane wrote: post #176
ElectronShak wrote: post #13

Whether it be setting up a LAMP stack on a server, securing nginx with Lets Encrypt, deploying a python ML model as a web service, you name it, DigitalOcean's tutorials just work. Thanks Digital Ocean! PS: I love the Idea of calling a single server a "Droplet" in the "Digital Ocean". Nice one DO.

wtf? i came across some tutorials there for work (aka the place where we dont do things properly because we arent pad to do so) and it was all script kiddie crap targeting some specific ubuntu distro that wont work next month (or worse, all i remember was that this was particularly egregious and even worse than all the other tutorial crap ive seen in that period of time). these blogs have been common since the 2000s…

> because the web already obviously a bad idea 30 years ago when people decided that website owners should be able to make users do shit before being able to read/view the content

Are you sure that was in the original spec?

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#215

Post by 867-5309 »

CRConrad wrote: post #212
867-5309 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note. unsure how this little solipsism bolsters your argument or who you're trying to convince. I still contest that it is not the same question. "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's…

> "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got. Let me direct your attention to: >>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??" Where you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?". So... > "Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with…

>you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?

>>>>it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got

apparently? no, but from where you falsely quote the 'original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?"'

again, having and getting are not the same thing

>...still stands

having tripped up so many times you'll be lucky if anything stands again

>To illustrate what was actually being answered

so, to provide a false foundation for your phoney answer. got it

>Who introduced the mixed tenses?

you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy!

>Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?

if anything it's a contraction of "do have got", if it was interpreted as just "do have", then we come back to the point of having not being the same as getting. you're complicating it by changing the verb, which in turn invalidates your answer. throwing the oneage around to try and sound sophisticated doesn't change this fact

>If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".

I can't account for your inability to process simple information. swerve noted

>Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

sarcasm from a dimwit, how befitting. punctuation and capitalisation are independent from or at best optional in language. you didn't lose any context and were able (albeit limitedly) to read it, so..

that's also a misuse of sic, but never mind, it's expected at this point

>Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.

remind us one more time

>Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... ..

yeeeah, you sure are something special

>Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!?

to satisfy your own gluttony? funny how you've refrained though

>Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.

whoosh get off your inferior plodding ass and have a nice day

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#216

Post by CRConrad »

867-5309 wrote: post #215
CRConrad wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got. Let me direct your attention to: >>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??" Where you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?". So... > "Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with…

>you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have? >>>>it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got apparently? no, but from where you falsely quote the 'original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?"' again, having and getting are not the same thing >...still stands having tripped up so many times you'll be lucky if anything stands agai…

> >Who introduced the mixed tenses?

> you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy!

Again, for the umpteenth time:

>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

"Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses.

> >Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

> that's also a misuse of sic, but never mind, it's expected at this point

No, it's a perfectly valid use of "sic" in the sense of "this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written". (Given how it's a proper name, and all.) What, you were only familiar with the other sense, that of "this is exactly how you wrote it, you numbskull "? Better piss off back to middle school and get some Bildung then.

You're boring me. See ya when you've grown up.

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#217

Post by 867-5309 »

CRConrad wrote: post #216
867-5309 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have? >>>>it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got apparently? no, but from where you falsely quote the 'original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?"' again, having and getting are not the same thing >...still stands having tripped up so many times you'll be lucky if anything stands agai…

> >Who introduced the mixed tenses? > you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy! Again, for the umpteenth time: >>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??" "Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses. > >Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Lat…

>"Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses.

"have got" is present tense, "had got" is the past tense

>it's a perfectly valid use

also expected

>"this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written"

you're meant to leave the supposed error in situ, not replace it with your supposed correction YAWN

>"this is exactly how you wrote it, you numbskull "

I don't understand this, but couldn't care less now

>Better piss off back to middle school

it's been like teaching a backwards child - you belong there more than I

>You're boring me. See ya when you've grown up.

your life is boring. I accept your concession

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#218

Post by CRConrad »

867-5309 wrote: post #217
CRConrad wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >Who introduced the mixed tenses? > you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy! Again, for the umpteenth time: >>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??" "Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses. > >Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Lat…

>"Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses. "have got" is present tense, "had got" is the past tense >it's a perfectly valid use also expected >"this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written" you're meant to leave the supposed error in situ, not replace it with your supposed correction YAWN >"this is exactly how you wrote it, y…

> you're meant to leave the supposed error in situ, not replace it with your supposed correction YAWN

This:

>>>> Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

Was my own usage of it in the correct form, hence the second sense of sic, "this is how it's supposed to be written" -- not the first sense, pointing out an error. Sheesh, your reading comprehension really is below-third-grade, isn't it? Or is it just that you have the attention span of a gnat on crack? Probably both.

> your life is boring.

Only to the extent that you persist in crashing into it. Please stop that.

> I accept your concession

So, no, you lost again. Now grow up PDQ, or POAD.

Re: DigitalOcean acquires CSS-tricks

#219

Post by 867-5309 »

CRConrad wrote: post #218
867-5309 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses. "have got" is present tense, "had got" is the past tense >it's a perfectly valid use also expected >"this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written" you're meant to leave the supposed error in situ, not replace it with your supposed correction YAWN >"this is exactly how you wrote it, y…

> you're meant to leave the supposed error in situ, not replace it with your supposed correction YAWN This: >>>> Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought. Was my own usage of it in the correct form, hence the second sense of sic, "this is how it's supposed to be written" -- not the first sense, pointing out an error. Sheesh, your reading comprehension rea…

>my own usage of it in the correct form..

>your reading comprehension really is below-third-grade, isn't it?

wow, your desperation has no limits it seems

thank goodness I never suffered an American "education"

>Only to the extent that you persist in crashing into it

so I'm to blame for you biting off more than you can chew

>So, no, you lost again. Now grow up PDQ, or POAD

stubborn little madam aren't we? no thank you

Post reply on HN