Yet "tc" does?

Too long an article (about type!) to be in white monospace text on a black background.

I had to use a reader view extension to stand it ;-)

Safari Reader View doesn’t support the site, so I backed out. Too monospaced; didn’t read.

Hiding the scrollbar is the real crime here.

I would agree with you if we were all reading on E-Ink displays. As it is, I'm actually reading this on an LCD screen, which even at low backlight settings is far to bright (and loses contrast). White text on a black background is far more comfortable.

It's the border that hurts my visual cortex.

at this point, the obsession with white, or grey, text on black bg is just a mental illness.

explain?

Not OP, but white text on black (especially at 100% contrast) is harder to read than black text on white. Monospace is harder to read than natural-width text. Large passages of text with both features is fatiguing to read.

Black text on white background with no backlight is easier to read. Think black text on paper.

When it comes to computer screens, usually set too bright to accommodate varying ambient lightning conditions throughout the day/year, it's not as simple, and I am not sure there is a study to confirm it.

And even if so, any individual's case might be different.

While you are right about the many misconfigured monitors, the right solution is to set an appropriate brightness and contrast, not to invert the text.

Too bright ambient lighting is better handled with monitor shields, not by increasing the display brightness, especially when the screen is glossy.

Not disagreeing (my external screens have never been set higher than 30% brightness, but they've also always been matte, except a couple instances I had to use Macs for work).

But I am sure none of this has been part of an actual study with screens.

> white text on black is harder to read than black text on white

not my experience (I prefer not to be flashbanged), but sure

Different stroke (color) for different folk

I think packetlost knows that. I think the argument being put forward was that "if you are the kind of person that thinks that speech is violence, then you would believe that allowing someone a platform..."

Tell us more.

For example, one word which is a form derived from one of the basic swear words can be used to describe/express: 1) disastrous circumstances, 2) extreme surprise, 3) an end-game event making very negative prospects for the future.

An adjective from the same stem would make another word with the meaning on the other side of the spectrum, which is basically "really cool, highly approved". An adjective similar but constructed in a little different way would mean "weird, crazy".

From the same stem you can make three most common verbs, one with meanings "beat up", "steal", another quite similar with meaning "lie" and a third one meaning "talk". Light modifications of the latter form allow some fine-tuning of the meaning, giving words describing more complex behaviour: 1) suddenly say something unexpected, that will attract the attention of others, causing amazement and approval, 2) unintentionally give up a secret, blurt out too much, 3) get yourself in trouble by talking too much, or even 4) fall down from a certain height or bump into an object receiving a light injury.

and so on, and so forth..

Not a good document. Needs a faded picture of a dragon on every page.

> Is that a euphemism for "Humans are leaving rubbish to pollute another part of the universe?"

Yes, in the same sense that the Pyramids and Stonehenge and the Parthenon are rubbish

Well, I guess some alien archeologists will have some fun trying to figure out what it was used for.

IMHO it would be more Yes, in the same sense that mount Everest is covered with all the garbage all the tourists can't be bothered to bring back from their (ego) trip.

On another note, I'm currently reading "Sunburst and Luminary An Apollo Memoir" from Don Eyles, which is a great read that makes you realize the feat it really was at the time.

My main interrogation now (and I've not yet looked anywhere for elements of answer) is why is it so difficult to reproduce with the current tech and scientfic advances ? Is bloatware involved or is the scope really different ?

Well, the universe is fairly big and humankind even if you add it all up is quite small. So....I don't think it will be a great problem for a while.

Oh no, were going to damage the biosphere of the moon!

Leaving spare parts for the lunar colony seems a fine idea.

Way worse.

Even when the moon is finally settled on, I guarantee you that nobody will make any effort to clean it up and throw it away.

It is truely sad that we can be sure that even thousands of years in the future, despite millions of humans looking at it every day, people will rather put a glass box around it, so nobody is bothered by it, than just tossing it into the lunar landfill.

I think it's okay to be sentimental about our first steps into space travel.

Maybe not obviously enough, but that was sarcastic

Edited - never mind, this is obviously random strings of characters.

What kind of activities could they do that would appeal to you (and other young people like you)?

Nothing comes to mind. Honestly it might be an "it's not you, it's me" thing. I keep my optimism to myself and when people talk about spirituality, community, building connections, etc., I feel like they're about to sell me something.

I recently got divorced and I'm sleeping around a bit. The social groups for sleeping around are rarely called churches. There's no Satanic Temple around here or I'd try visiting them.

I saw that "Sacred Harp" a capella style posted here on HN a few weeks ago and it captured my interest. I like the idea that I wouldn't have to be a great singer, I could just be part of a bunch of people doing something for the sake of fun. But even the UU hymns feel too saccharine for me already.

I've moved across the world 4 times in my adult life. Every time I have made deeper and faster community connections by joining a local church than through any other means.