Babel is both the driving force of innovation and the cause of much of the fragmentation in JS. Babel allows you to use the latest language features and target the oldest environments. The trouble is that there's not a "right way" to package software to cover all of the deployment concerns. Code needs to work on Node going back several versions as well as browsers going back several versions. And for mobile/desktop websites, your code bundle size is extremely important. Rollup and Webpack 4 go a long way towards making this easier but it's nothing close to a "standard best way" to do it.
Rematch reminds me of Marty.js. I like some of the ideas about providing a createStore wrapper that is more zero-config and using something like redux-actions to make reducers simpler. I have been using my own wrapper around sagas to allow for dispatching effects.
They lose me with their idea of "models" where I have a global dispatch that can be extended, like dispatch.modelName.actionName. That's just old school object-oriented thinking layered on top of redux's functional programming ideals.
I've given advice to young professionals in the past in this same vein. I ask, "What magic is it that people love good ideas, yet, you have a good idea and no one listens to you?"
The answer boils down to this: if you have a good idea but people are rejecting it, find a new way to talk about it.
Write an evolutionary ML bot network that trades stocks in 5 minute intervals. Don't try to compete on the nanosecond micro trading end, just try to beat the market by making "good" decisions in a reasonable, human timeframe.
The question your bot is trying to solve is, "should I buy or sell this stock?" And the criteria is, "will this stock be up or down in the next X minutes."
Let the bots play in a fake market until they start to make money. It should be enough to give each bot a pot of money ($10k?) and call it dead when it goes broke or call it "good" when it makes good bets.
This is a good space for ML because the inputs are fairly well understood (stock tickers and a small set of common stock metric values). You can add in some novel inputs, like weather data in all of the trading capitals of the world (NYC, Toyko, etc).
The two tricks are this:
1) You need a community of bots that are all communicating with each other. Meaning, each bot knows what the other bots think, and how much money they have.
2) You need to let each individual bot's neural network evolve. Meaning, let the "best" performing bots "breed" with each other. Also meaning, let the values in the neural network set themselves through evolution/random rather than bothering with backpropagation.
This toy [1], showing an evolutionary neural network "learning" to follow a maze should be inspiring. Or, imagine a version of Agar.io [2] where you had to decide if a pellet (a stock) was a good idea to eat/purchase.
I wonder why? Is the same phenomenon at play with Trump's approval rating? It's been in the high-mid-30s for many weeks now [1]. 80+ consecutive days at the time of this writing. Even outside of Russia-related scandals (like hiring Mike Flynn [3]), he has done some obviously bad things (like the Billy Bush tape [2]).
> [Streaming is] the big asset [movie studios] could build on!
The movie studios likely don't see it this way. Tickets and merchandising are still the two main pillars of the industry. Home viewing is still the bottom end of the market [1]. The embrace of streaming represents a loss of revenue, not a gain of consumer good will [6].
Physical media (DVD/BluRay) are much more lucrative. Studios have an incentive to keep selling a pennies-worth of plastic for $20. Streaming represents a major loss of revenue and the studios will stall and delay until consumer demand forces them to change.
People still buy millions of BluRay movies each year [2]. Now the studios are trying to compete directly with Netflix, rather than embrace the changing consumer landscape. This is largely a continuation of Blockbuster's long, slow demise [3].
In order to feed the lucrative parts of the distribution chain (movie tickets, merch, physical media), Hollywood is increasingly churning out "big" movies. This has spawned a new phenomenon called "super hero fatigue" [5]. Many are predicting the demise of blockbusters altogether in the near future [4].
But don't expect studios to change until it's proven that they can't make money the old way.
High-quality public television tends to make cable and satellite TV less attractive. SkyTV has been far less popular in its primary markets than DirecTV has been in the US.
In the US, Comcast and Verizon are more analogous to the BBC in England -- TV is less expensive (as an individual monthly cost) when it is publicly funded.
Interestingly, the BBC is investing heavily to compete with Netflix [1]. If you live in an area that the BBC serves, you will likely need fewer streaming services to get the content you want.
> The only competition with the streaming service would be piracy.
Piracy is the only thing that will lead to a consumer friendly streaming option. If it weren't for music piracy, a service like Spotify might not exist. For video, Bit Torrent was popular for years.
Now people are flocking to things like Kodi, which can be installed on a Firestick [3] and, with add-ons, can stream anything for free [1]. In order to fight piracy, the studios will need to make it more convenient for consumers to pay [2].
> If all major studios pull their content from Netflix, then it will not have the large library size anymore.
Exactly! It is obvious that Netflix and Amazon are pivoting to be more like HBO and Showtime. Apparently, as they reach out to a global audience they need to rely on original content to avoid costly licensing disputes [1].
Most people pay north of $100/mo for cable TV [1]. Depending on your bundle you may pay as high as $150 (anecdotal from friends who have Comcast). If you pay $50/mo for your internet connection you could afford 5 or so $10/mo services on the same budget.
Arguably, right now Comcast Xfinity has the most/best streamable content if you pay for HBO. This will likely change soon; this has been a long time coming. Cord-cutting is increasingly popular [2] and the studios are adapting.
Disney is gambling that they own enough content to make your top 5 list of streaming subscriptions.
Tesla's big advantage is that most other car makers have publicly ridiculed electric cars [1] and heavily promoted the roar of gasoline engines [2]. Electric car sales are widely expected overtake gasoline cars in the next 30 years [3]. Recently, car makers have had to eat their words in the wake of dieselgate [4]. Old school car makers will have to retrain their audience to embrace electric cars [5]. Meanwhile, Tesla benefits from being an early adopter.
I think the term you're looking for is "history" [1] as in, "tech people tend to adopt a historical view of older companies." With extremely few exceptions, the older a company gets the more obsolete it becomes [2].
"[I]t’s important to realize that the situation reflected in this data represents the past, not the present. States across the country are rapidly cleaning up their grids, thanks to cap-and-trade programs, investments in renewable energy, tightened air quality standards, and more coal plants put to sleep." [2]
"Here’s the cool thing about electric vehicles in the U.S. right now: In many areas, the longer you own one, the cleaner it gets." [1]
The idea that electric vehicles are "dirty" because of electricity produced from coal is now widely viewed as a myth [1]. The electric grid in the US (and worldwide [3]) is consistently and rapidly moving away from coal, which increases the "clean" factor of EVs over time [2].
Oil companies recently raised their projections on EV adoption by 40% [1]. Many countries are setting aggressive EV quotas, targeting 100% EV adoption in the near future [2, 3]. Perhaps counter-intuitively, oil prices have not historically affected EV purchases [4]. Detailed sales trackers have shown consistent year-over-year growth in the EV segment for the past 22 consecutive months [5], a time when oil prices have been relatively low [6]. Even with low gasoline prices, driving an EV is reported to be less expensive per mile [7].
There is a long list of companies that are planning to go all electric or to significantly electrify their offerings in the next few years [1, 2, 3]. Chevy/GM is an early entrant into the market because they -- much like Nissan -- need to gain a competitive advantage over VW and Toyota [4].
> it's very possible that most car buyers simply don't want [a Tesla/electric car].
Many surveys have shown that people want electric cars [1, 2]. While the car industry overall has declined [3], the EV segment has continued to grow [4]. While it's possible that people don't want to own an EV, the available evidence hints at future growth in the EV segment [5].
Early studies (2012) found that high school students had CTE [1]. When the issue broke nationally a few years ago, early indicators were that high school students were at higher risk than older athletes [2]. There have been some doctors that claim to be able to diagnose living people with CTE [3]. However, concussions are difficult to diagnose [4] and may go unreported. Sadly, one common side effect of concussions is suicidal thoughts [5]. Which is one of the main reasons people are asking if football is worth the risk [6].
One wonders why you would say divisive things aloud in an otherwise lonely forest. Saying something hurtful, offensive, divisive, unnecessary... is problematic regardless of the size of the audience. You can see that the original "divisive" comment [1] on this thread sparked a large response.
It's true that a HackerNews thread has a lower global-political impact than, say, a presidential tweet or a Supreme Court ruling. But that shouldn't prevent anyone from thinking through their HN comments. Words matter.
The comment we're both responding to [1] was unnecessarily divisive -- which partially obscured the commenter's otherwise good points (that team-thinking can obscure rational thinking). And that's particularly important on a website like HackerNews.
Original divisive comment: "[Has football joined the list of] values that separate members of the Red Tribe from the Blue Tribe? Football is a red-state pastime." [1]
The comment you responded to: "You're creating [divisive] discourse [by posing divisive questions]." [2]
I think your response, pointing out that a comment on HN usually won't "create" a nationally divisive discourse [3], is missing the point. If you look at the rest of the thread you can see that it created a divisive debate within HackerNews. I think the point you're missing is that divisive language creates divisions wherever it is used and it's worthwhile to point that out -- even if you think you're only talking to yourself.