Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mrvenkman's commentslogin

I’ll admit I know little about this guy.


Which way up is that picture?


Pretty sure we're lookup up at a slight angle. Those high hat lights are usually on the ceiling and not walls or floors.


The product website has a bit more helpful pictures: https://wavebyagc.com/en/hidden-antennas-for-urban-environme...


Nothing in that particular report says anything about the pagers exploding individually. It may of been a box, labelled as containing pagers, delivered to a group of people and detonated in one location.


There are videos on twitter and NY Times article explains more

Pagers people had on their pants exploded


I kind of have the shakes? https://imgur.com/a/M1KsWci


Thanks for this, Neal! I hope you're not feeding it into a SkyNet targeting system!


My circle is 89.4% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


got 94%! macbook trackpad (and a couple dozen attempts)


Close: My circle is 90.0% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/ lol


My circle is 91.0% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 89.5% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 69.7% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 97.2% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 96.2% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 89.2% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 87.9% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 98.5% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 98.0% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 99.2% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


mine is 100% haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


My circle is 98.0% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 00.0% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 93.3% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


100% can you beat that LMAO


Yeah


Yes


I got 98.1% beat that


I got 96.0% circle BEAT THAT!


i got 101% beat that


My circle is 97.5% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/l


My circle is 97.5% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 94.6% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 94.9% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 99.8% perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


My circle is 99.8 perfect, can you beat that? https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/


Challenge accepted. I am on a Lenovo IdeaPad - Fedora.


You highlighted another advantage: HTML is quicker to parse.


Looks great and performs great. Thank you for sharing!


Thanks for sharing your experience with the site!


Fantastic article. And I appreciate you sharing it with me.

The idea of introducing a new attribute to a HTML tag, whether it be "_" or "_foo" or "_do" doesn't quite sit properly with me.

Especially if it's not part of the HTML5 standards.


It’s explicitly part of the HTML spec that you can do this, and that the semantics of those attributes are application/user defined, and should not be interpreted by the browser.


Out of genuine curiosity, where's this defined? I went looking and could only find https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110405/Overview.html

> For flexibility, attributes names containing underscores (the U+005F LOW LINE character) are also reserved for experimental purposes and are guaranteed to never be formally added to the HTML language.

> Note: Pages that use such attributes are by definition non-conforming.

in a broader context of "experimental purposes" being for "vendor-specific proprietary user agent extensions to this specification", which "are strongly discouraged. Documents must not use such extensions, as doing so reduces interoperability and fragments the user base, allowing only users of specific user agents to access the content in question."

Is that it? That seems different, but I don't see anything else similar. Or am I looking in the wrong spec?

There's also https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#attribute-name-state which defines attribute names as not inclusive of underscores.


Not sure what parent post was referring to explicitly but data attributes were the first thing I thought of in this general context


Could you maybe provide a times table for help?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: