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

Based on the photo posted by the Blue Origin CEO the tanks are definitely getting stretched (also looks like a slightly different fin, landing leg, and fairing config)


I've had mixed results with this method, especially for folks in category 5 because they grew up in a world where people casually talked about [actual] visualization and they've associated [not actually visualization] with the word (thinking it is a metaphor for something else). As someone who cannot visualize at all when faced with this question I feel like my answer wants to be.. "null" / "the premise of this question doesn't make sense" and not "5"

A variant that I've found helpful for teasing out this case: 1. Ask the test subject to visualize an Apple 2. Ask them for a few very specific details about the apple they are currently visualizing (what color is it? does it have a leaf or a bite out of it?, etc)

In many cases aphantastics will not object to the activity in step 1, but they won't be doing the same thing as the folks who are actually visualizing. They'll just do what they do when people talk about "visualizing".

When you get to step 2 someone who is actually visualizing can immediately answer the questions and don't think they are strange, they are just reporting what they are visualizing in front of them.

An aphantastic in step 2 is often confused. They aren't actually visualizing any specific apple so there isn't a reference to answer the questions. You'll get a response like.. well what kind of Apple is it? How should I know if it has a bite out of it? You first have to either provide more context or reword the question to something like: What is a color an Apple could be? or What color is your favorite Apple?


I also find it really weird as the killer (only?) app for IPv6 is that home hobbyists can run servers with low overhead!

Additionally, like a sibling comment notes, a home hobbyist has full control over at least half, often more, of their addresses and can easily choose addresses for their network that are as short or shorter and easier to remember and organize vs a v4 network where you have no letters to work with much more strict subnet size rules, etc.

IPv6 is a dream for home hobbyists! The complaining from them about “unmemorable” addresses just makes no sense.


> I also find it really weird as the killer (only?) app for IPv6 is that home hobbyists can run servers with low overhead!

Well, the non-trivial percentage of large orgs that have literally run out of RFC 1918 space would disagree.

But yes, you're right. There's a weird Stockholm syndrome thing some people have with NAT.


Yes, companies run out of RFC 1918 addresses, but no, they will continue to use public ranges for their internal networks.


>vs a v4 network where you have no letters to work with

It'd be hard to have so many devices that even in 10.0.0.0/8, you run into a need to have letters as part of the network addresses.

My home network is larger than most and I while I use multiple subnets for fun, I could it all of it into a single /24.


It's not weird. Many ISPs have dynamic prefixes, and even with "just" 56 bits that prefix is long and not very memorable.

Thus ULA is a must on the inside, and DynDNS is still required for anything internet facing.


A more accurate way to describe this is that IPv4 prevents anyone who isn't a hobbyist or professional from running their own server.


NAT for airline flight numbers would fix this problem and improve security to boot!


I have complete aphantasia when awake, but I do have visuals when dreaming. I can tell when I cross some threshold of awake-ness because the visuals of the dream I am having disappear (the dream usually continues, without visuals for a bit longer until I am more awake). It is a weird experience.


College hack nights, geographical meetup groups, contributing to open source projects.


the reference says $1.18 billion just for "launch operation costs" that doesn't include the hardware. Farther down the source cites the hardware + operations as $2.2B/5 launches


std::shared_ptr is reference counted. No GC involved.


The scene in Jurassic Park where owner John Hammond chides the lead geneticist Henry Wu that he likes to be present when the dinosaurs hatch.


Seconding this, if you dropped OpenTTD because of the simplistic passenger/cargo routing (i.e. take any cargo to any place and pay is only based on how far you took it) then definitely give the CargoDist option a try.

Every passenger (or mail or manufactured good) has a unique destination in your system that you need to get it to. They are roughly balanced based on demand (two stations in large cities will generate a lot of traffic between them, but a small town will only generate a small amount of traffic to and from a large city). It makes the transport routing game way more interesting and more like the routing of passengers in more traditional Sim City type games.


Beyond just that, the ability for passengers to "route" themselves (Take airplane from CityA -> CityB, then rail from CityB -> CityC, then bus from CityC to CityD... and back) is the bigger, more important effect of the CargoDist feature.

That means you can form "Hub and Spokes" for passenger traffic, and the individual passengers are smart enough to figure out how to route themselves to their ultimate destinations.

------------

Its the most "realistic feeling" traffic mod I've found of any of these games, honestly. Even Cities Skylines seems rather basic in comparison.

-----------

I play on Passengers/Mail as CargoDist, and then all other traffic (Coal, Wood, Cargo, Oil, etc. etc.) as default / original rules.

I also set the "symmetry" of CargoDist to 80%. That is, 20% of traffic is one-way, which seems to be correct in my opinion? I think it defaults to 100%, but it doesn't make sense for _ALL_ traffic to be bidirectional (ie: for all agents to make a return trip each time).

EDIT: I do think that a "big mod" to OpenTTD under a new name would be beneficial to the project. Something that redefines OpenTTD's sizes (each square is supposed to be a square km, but it doesn't "feel" like it. Roads aren't a square km wide after all...). I think that if each square were 10m x 10m nominal, and then for all other parts of the game to be redesigned off of that (scaling up docks, rail depos, cities, etc. etc. as appropriate to this new size), would be really all that OpenTTD needs. Plus CargoDist Passengers/Mail by default.


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

Search: