Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hilarious! What the heck is it doing here?
I prefer it over the suicide.mp3 we found in a proprietary software's code base
Umm... Do you mind if I ask for some context there?
Source for theguardian.com
91–100 of 104 posts
Re: Source for theguardian.com
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel very stupid but what is "flooring"? Is it just a different spelling of "flour"? I didn't manage to Google it.
flooring as in the floor under your feet. flooring, especially wood, is sold in "panels". therefore you get wood flooring panels. no idea why the guy spelled 'flour' like 'floor'.
Since they commented about a French recipe, they're probably French (like me) and this is a really easy mistake to make as a French person. (Keep in mind that here on HN, foreigners are used to speak English about computers and other technical topics but not especially about cooking or other common-life stuff)
Re: Source for theguardian.com
#93One more reason to support them. Even if you don't always agree with their opinions, it's nice to move away from commercial journalism and keep things as open and transparent as possible.
The Guardian is commercial journalism. It is set up as a completely ordinary company. Historically the newspaper has been keenly interested in the concerns of the working classes, but that has not extended towards some kind of alternative non-commercial structure for it. (The Scott Trust does not make much of a difference here. A business can have such a way to remain free of outside pressures but still be a straight…
[deleted]
Re: Source for theguardian.com
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
WSJ, Economist, FT and New Yorker are all western publications, and way closer to providing an balanced journalism. Guardian destroyed their own reputation in the last two years by openly publishing paid pieces and propaganda, even advocating for property seizure (see all their articles on “nationalization” of FB). Economist/New Yorker on the other hand are great examples of a quality left-biased publication.
> see all their articles on “nationalization” of FB Are you talking about the articles labeled "Opinion"?
[deleted]
Re: Source for theguardian.com
#95One more reason to support them. Even if you don't always agree with their opinions, it's nice to move away from commercial journalism and keep things as open and transparent as possible.
>it's nice to move away from commercial journalism and keep things as open and transparent as possible.
Open and transparent as possible is still not open or transparent.
There is no way to verify that what they published is actually what is running on their server... so publishing a repo means nothing in regards to "openness and transparency," for this or any other website. All of them are proprietary black boxes as far as the end user is concerned.
Re: Source for theguardian.com
#96Re: Source for theguardian.com
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro wrestling is also popular here.
Yeah, but people know that's fake...
Based on the documented reaction of people to Trump admitting having paid off an adult film star (that is, not being surprised or caring), I'm starting to think "They don't know it's fake" is too easy of a reach.
The alternative exists that they really know the more strident bits of conservative media are fake, and just don't care. And indeed, delight in it because of its outlandishness.
Re: Source for theguardian.com
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
A font family with the weights and other options a newspaper needs is a major undertaking. It's maybe 5 to 10 person-years of rather specialised work. For a publication constantly fighting to even break even, the costs aren't trivial. So, the answer obviously is: the Guardian got the font far cheaper by allowing it to be sold to other customers, and (relevant here) not paying for a license that allows sub-licensing (…
> A font family with the weights and other options a newspaper needs is a major undertaking. It's maybe 5 to 10 person-years of rather specialised work I'd love to hear more about this and why it's such an undertaking. Is it the "Font family" aspect that takes so long, because the designers are expected to produce a never ending line of similar fonts and symbols? Do the font designers have to consider printing costs…
For the lettershapes themselves it won't likely be a matter of "printed area", depending on the news paper it will be printed at a far lower dot grain density than your average print product.
There are although numerous things to consider when designing a font for small printed copy, like how tight you can make a corner before ink would start to trap in it and bleed over the detail.
But there are many aspects of creating a full font family that make it a huge amount of work - not only do you need to fit all supported characters to different weights, essentially re-drawing the glyphs for every weight to make them balanced within their shape. You'll also have to do the kerning, tweaking individual spacings for all possible letter combinations at every weight. And that is all after having created & perfected every shape of every glyph to work together and have a distinguishable look and fashion.
Re: Source for theguardian.com
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
WSJ, Economist, FT and New Yorker are all western publications, and way closer to providing an balanced journalism. Guardian destroyed their own reputation in the last two years by openly publishing paid pieces and propaganda, even advocating for property seizure (see all their articles on “nationalization” of FB). Economist/New Yorker on the other hand are great examples of a quality left-biased publication.
I would have never though that I will see WSJ and balanced in same sentence.
They were pretty consistent in their critic of polices of both GOP and democratic governments, and are usually pretty open in addressing issues in business from all sides. What do you find to be unbalanced in their reporting?