You say that like it's a bad thing in this context. Cars are (immensely) far from perfect, but hey, parts interoperability is non-zero and for plenty of cars (even newer ones) you can still reasonably get them fixed.
It'd be awesome if I could head on down to a phone parts store and pick up a couple of components so my phone can live perpetually in repair, but we're not quite that far along yet.
I'm not even going to bother with the first two paragraphs here - you're mostly just going on about how you don't like the people on HN and don't think they're real hackers and then you're deploying a massive and wide ad hominem against HN's readers. Luckily, I don't really identify with them all that much either -- in fact, I actually have a lot of recurring issues with HN's readership, but I'm saving that for another time.
The simple truth here is this: I don't have a four year degree. I don't even write code for a living. I work in IT, in a role that you would probably best describe as just 'IT guy.' I don't make more than $60,000 a year in the role I'm currently in. I care about money to the extent that I need money to live, to feed my car gas, to feed myself food, and to feed my computer at home electricity.
You're getting the cold shoulder here because you don't seem to have the nuance to understand how people actually interact with and care about their work. I feel like we live in a nightmarish hellscape where a significant portion of work is driven by nothing but desire for profit, but this doesn't suddenly make me think that everyone involved in making things is only there because they get paid. On the other hand, you appear to think any person who sells anything is going through this whole process purely for money.
The replies to you have been perfectly amicable, and encourage discussion. YOU have been shutting that discussion down because people don't agree with you.
Because if the thing I'm doing is, for instance, making artisan screwdrivers, I don't spend my whole day making money. I spend my whole day making screwdrivers. If I love making screwdrivers, then I love making screwdrivers.
Now that I have all these real nice screwdrivers lying around, I can sell them to other people who might want a really nice screwdriver. Not only did I get to do the thing I enjoyed doing: making screwdrivers, but I also made some money off of it. Some of that money can be used to cover cost of materials on the screwdriver I made, the rest of it can be used to enrich my personal life, or maybe grant me access to stronger tools to do the thing I enjoy doing.
Making something and selling something are two different tasks. I can love making things and still sell those things for a profit, and my love for making things can have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I get money out of it. Where do you get the presumption that you can't possibly do something good that you like and still make money off of it?
...you're on Hacker News. A significant portion of this website is just people talking about Open Source Software, something that consistently produces case studies about people making things for love or for art or for passion instead of just for money.
Plenty of people make things for value that isn't purely financial.
> Otherwise they wouldn't copyright it.
This isn't how copyright works, at least in the US. Generalizing broadly, you own the copyright of whatever you create unless you've otherwise signed that away. It's automatic. You don't fill out a form to have copyright over a work.
As someone who wanted to file taxes in Oregon this year without using anybody else's software, I was completely appalled by how inaccessible a system that literally every working American will have to interact with at some point is. They even got rid of the "Free Fillable Forms" option, so if you wanted to file and do your own taxes for yourself, you have to do the paper forms.
It's 2022, and I can't submit my government mandated math homework electronically as a private citizen. That should piss an incredible number of people off, but nobody ever seems to think about it.
It's also worth mentioning that the name of the resource here was confusing - the author mentions that this happened because he mixed up how GitHub names profile READMEs for organizations vs users.
The same thing that the cloud company would do. If there are other people there who share that guy's responsibilities, have them do it. If there aren't, you should have an on-call.
Cloud just outsources that problem to another business. Sure, they have better reasons to actually cover those positions and make sure they have on-calls and backup and a disaster plan, but just because you pay extra money for it doesn't actually make it work better if the company underlying it sucks.
This, honestly. It _feels_ more like the only people that care about SV censorship policies are the people affected by them: SV types that live almost entirely on the platforms they're scared of being censored from. Well, that and people who make their entire careers pushing other peoples' boundaries and, as a result, generate a big negative following.
This is with the presumption that the filtering here is device-level and not user-level. The fact that they were able to wipe and reset the device AT ALL probably means that the device isn't fully enrolled into device management (only the account is) and that the blocking and monitoring is just for that one specific account/profile. That is to say, none of the blocking is breaking the privilege rules on the system.
This isn't to give them extra credit. GoGuardian is still spyware and you should be, at the very least, wary of it if you have a kid with that software running around. But this behavior is consistent with the design of ChromeOS and isn't shocking or special if you've been paying attention to what ChromeOS has been built for over the last couple years.
I think you are misreading the comment at the root of this whole thread. They aren't saying "if you go up a tax bracket, ALL of your income goes down because you pay more taxes!" but instead saying "you might make more money but despite that, you will not be able to buy more things." I don't think tax brackets have anything to do with this besides being tied to how much you make.
In the US in particular, it doesn't matter if the underaged subject exists or not, but I think you'll find the law much more loosely enforced in cases where the subject of the pictures doesn't exist.
I feel like we have different definitions as to what clickbait is - when I see a clickbait video, I can simply identify it by it's title and thumbnail, I've never needed to look at the like:dislike ratio to confirm that it's clickbait. What kind of videos do you find as clickbait?
I mean, not just perception issues, but also the fact that you're inherently setting yourself up to build a platform with a core userbase of "People banned from [the more popular version of the platform they're cloning]." You build VidMe and the first people interested in VidMe are people that got kicked off of YouTube, which it turns out are rarely oppressed free speech advocates and much more often trolls and similarly unwanted individuals. If your userbase is entirely toxic, nobody wants to stay there, and your platform never really succeeds because of that.
It's worth noting that I'm loosely parroting the content of a Folding Ideas video[1] that covers the discussion of the creator vs platform relationship overall.
This. I find that the vast majority of cases where I'd pay any attention to the dislike bar are just cases where people are getting dogpiled for whatever reason (whether they deserve it or not, or if anyone deserves to be treated like that on the internet, is another matter entirely) but I've heard reasonable arguments from people talking about tutorials and other informative videos that the like:dislike ratio is a convenient sniff test for if the video is worth watching.
This, not to mention it seems somewhat unproductive to lock off 99% of the internet because of information collection instead of teaching how to defeat those collectors. The kid's going to grow up and leave eventually and will have to contend with the full internet, it doesn't feel like a good idea to leave them without any experience of the kind of things you can run in to.
> Decades later, we're still hearing "crypto is a bubble." I'm still waiting for that to be true.
Decades? With an S? It's barely been 10 years since Bitcoin's public release and that's ignoring the fact that it wasn't particularly popular (and nowhere near as valuable) for another couple of years. Other cryptocurrencies wouldn't come into their own for another couple of years after Bitcoin, either.
For reference, the dot-com bubble began roughly in 1995 and had popped by 2003. Crypto, especially with the fact that it picked up in value an incredible amount in 2020, is a prime candidate for being a bubble.
> I'm sorry there's demand for popular hardware. That's how markets work.
And the actual demand is being exacerbated by the somewhat artificial demand crypto creates. It also likely means that if crypto is a bubble and it pops, there's going to be a glut of pre-owned crypto-abused graphics cards flooding the market. All of this is definitely a knock-on effect of cryptocurrencies booming.
> The environmental claims are all FUD. None of them hold up to the slightest scrutiny.
Would you like to back this claim up with anything? The way proof-of-work crypto works demands computation, which demands power. Imagine if somebody did take this entire pallet of GPUs and start mining cryptocurrency with it; that'd be a pretty good amount of power consumption. Tack on the fact that there are multiple cryptocurrencies and a lot more than just a trailer full of GPUs working on mining them around the world, plus the fact that those GPUs are unlikely to be as efficient as the latest, and you've got a lot of power consumption.
Obviously, I'm not doing the math here, but just thinking about the (apparently hypothetical) power consumption of something like Etherium or Bitcoin is enough to raise red flags in my mind.
Is your argument here supposed to be "Nothing is all inclusive, therefore we shouldn't even bother trying"? If so, I'd argue that's a lot more ridiculous than a review process designed to help catch major inclusivity issues before they become problems.
It's more like "if you don't need to, don't invent your own [x]." People who like to invent [x] are usually smart enough to understand why that warning is there to begin with, and don't tend to argue with it.
You've never wanted to edit text/code on a computer that isn't yours before? There are a lot of cases where I can see this coming in handy for making quick edits as an IT professional, especially in cases where I need to mess with a slightly complex file on an end user's machine but don't have the time or desire to copy it back to my own.
It'd be awesome if I could head on down to a phone parts store and pick up a couple of components so my phone can live perpetually in repair, but we're not quite that far along yet.