skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
+1. Adding two thoughts.

1. I assume screen time translates to a stronger position in the market. Revenue-wise it might be negative, but I assume they have metrics showing that the less screen time a subscriber incurs, the more likely they are to cancel their subscription.

I'd suppose there is a ceiling to this. I personally would imagine it's just as likely for someone to cancel their subscription if they watch 5 hours a week then if they watch 20-- they probably won't, but I'd suppose at some point is just about holding a strong position? Forming habits? Someone who watches 5 hours a week might be watching one or two shows, will run out of things to watch, and might will jump ship if they find that next show somewhere else. Or they might have enough things to do outside of Netflix they'll just do more of that after they are done watching.

2. Which brings me to my second thought. In general, in my opinion it's wrong and creepy that Netflix has this wide view of what it's competing against. Including sleep [1] and now Fortnite is getting kind of borderline "anything that people do with their free time" at this point.

Sleep: it's general economic downtime. It's time everyone could spend doing something else, but you don't see KFC competing against it. Imagine-- "People are sleeping too much! That slows digestion, so they get less hungry. We gotta compete against that!"

Videogames: Not saying Fortnite is the healthiest of activities, but sheesh, not all screen time is the same. Sometimes I get tired of passive consumption and want to do something that will at least require me to press some buttons and strategize a bit.

[1]: https://www.recode.net/2017/4/17/15334122/netflix-sleep-comp...
One issue is current sensor range. A truck on the highway has a way longer stopping distance than a car and requires sensors that are not quite there yet: sure radar could see obstacle that far but the lane detection necessary to distinguish a car parked on the line from a car on the shoulder can't yet see that far
I feel it's come a really long way. Maybe I'm just buying machines with supported graphics cards now, but I have not had any catastrophic failures since getting on 18.04.
Their latest price increase is undoubtedly because their cash burn is really really high. Even despite their increase in prices they noted their burn rate would remain the same...which means they are spending a lot of money content.
Not really. They hand wave it around the end. But their comparisons are not for full life cycles of PV and wind. At least as far as I can tell.
SaaS != GCE.

I find the skillset required to build Basecamp differs greatly with building AWS/GCE portfolio (with over hundred different services that can be combined to deliver solutions for multiple ranges of companies...)

I don't think Google was looking for someone to build RoR or Angular. Those were merely side projects that came out once every few years. No offense but some of the key components of RoR were implementation of Martin Fowler's Enterprise Application Architecture patterns.
Because being easily deployable is a very important part of a technology.
I'm assuming that it's a Forth because there are a lot of dialects, and this is one of them.
Have you checked out duplicacy[1]? It's support for incremental backups is fairly unparalleled in my experience. It does not have the same limitation of duplicity.

[1] https://github.com/gilbertchen/duplicacy
So current front-end is bad, but old .NET was worse?
It's a way of coping with our limited lifespan. The thought of leaving something behind gives people a sense of comfort that they may live on in some capacity when they pass. The truth is, even if you do something impactful, future generations will often take it for granted or overturn your work in making progress. No one escapes the bleak nature of our existence. No one.
We really don't have a good model for digital goods. In theory, the cost of goods should be roughly equal to the marginal cost of creating them. With physical goods, this mostly works out: amortizing the fixed costs and profit margin result in just a relativly small markup on the marginal cost.

With digital goods, and their near 0 marginal cost, this system fundamentally breaks down, and we are still just hacking together whatever solution we can get to kind of work.
"GM says it will launch a robot taxi service in 2019" - 11/30/17

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/30/16720776/gm-cruise-self-...

"GM Hitting Bumps on $5 Billion Road to Driverless Cars by 2019" - 10/25/2018

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/10/25/50...

The hype has definitely been there, and on HN too. I can't find it now, but there was a great Twitter thread around New Year of someone calling in a bet they'd made with an SV figure about self driving Lyfts by 2019.
How do you manage millions of keys, if you have millions of small files to be backed up? Would it be ok to have something between 1:all and 1:1?
2010: The food is poor, the seats are uncomfortable, the wifi is slow, and we're running half and hour late.

1910: We dream of human flight.

2018: So many dependencies; so much disk; who can understand why it all exists; how can anyone stay current; how can you trust it all.

1981: We dream of reusable software, of assemblable software components, of sharing.
Lovely piece of software.
I mean I use my gym membership, but I think the analogy is wrong. People don't use their gym membership because it's just an office to do (body)work in. Netflix is entirely consumable for the purchaser, not much work involved. Laziness might still be the answer in common.
>or simply giving me the wrong time at a critical point

The use of “ish” tells me this isn’t designed to be a high precision instrument.
Lots of misinformation in these comments. Both the process and end product are patentable, but some companies do not disclose their processes and opt to keep them as trade secrets.

As for the article, changing the molecule can have unpredictable effects on how the compound acts in the body. Even changing one bond/atom can result in dramatically different properties. The article doesn't address that.
Those are door buster sales.

Anyways, I looked it up - they were also carrier locked to walmart mobile, a mvno in which the price of the phone is subsidized.
Npm might be a good tool like pip. But unlike pip it encourages installing shit.

Even react which from limited experience is pretty cool. But apparently there must be dozens possibly hundreds of true senior devs in the US. Most everyone else fucks it up.

And I agree there is a shallow depth in the js world. Everyone wants the new shiny toy instead of using an evolving toolkit. JS is the embodiment of ADD.
At least I see some interesting new original content now.
I wish they would try to create less, but more expensive content.
The superhero series are for example boring for me because they are cheaply produced (I usually watch them _just_ because of the animations).
In addition to other comments, as I understand, bootstrapped Forth and similar languages usually compile down to code that is not optimal speed-wise, but a lot more compact that usual, because it's basically all CALL instructions (i.e. every word definition defines a function, and every use of the word inside the definition is a call to the corresponding function). This can be a desirable trade-off when you're dealing with a platform that has, say, 8 kilobytes of RAM to work with for all your code.
Ex-Netflix here. When I was there we had two metrics we cared about: hours watched and retention. Whenever we introduced a new feature we carefully measured it's impact on those two metrics. Ultimately, retention was the most important metric, but hours watched was a leading indicator for retention.

I always had a bit of a moral dilemma working at Netflix because my goal was to get people to spend more time watching Netflix, which I didn't really think was good for humanity.

Either way, it was nice having very clear goals. Netflix was a great company to work for.
As long as they both share the same road and drive in the same traffic it doesn't make sense as to how can one be a harder problem than the other.

In fact I never want a driverless 80,000lb 18 wheeler anywhere near me when I'm driving. A 5000lb driverless car is scary enough.
> Until the FOSS community decides to unify behind a single experience [...]

People always say this whenever Linux is under discussion. No one actually wants this. If you want "one-size fits all" use MacOS or Windows and see how that fits you.
Also bring back the home button... I don’t like the face unlock and gestures. I’ll give up the screen real estate for the functionality.
Looks neat, but also seems a lot like KnockoutJS[1] or StimulusJS[2].

[1] https://knockoutjs.com

[2] https://stimulusjs.org
This is not unique to digital goods. Products that rely on intellectual property have worked the same way for centuries. The cost of movies, drugs, books, etc. have nothing to do with their marginal cost.
I guess this kubernetes piece[0] would be the epitome of n00b code.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18772873
> first of all the end of car ownership as we have it today.

I see the idea thrown around a lot that self-driving cars will make us all use taxis because, absent human drivers, the taxis will be far cheaper than owning a car -- but I have yet to see strong analysis on this claim. There's lots of issues here:

* inconvenience: Unless the network is extremely dense, this means waiting for a taxi vs. driving myself. Denser networks, however, all things equal, mean lower utilization.

* storage: All sorts of people need to store things in their car. Contractors with tools, parents of toddlers with car seats, etc. Taxis prove to be too inconvenient, leading this population to prefer owning (hurting network density)

* traffic patterns: Commute patterns are heavily one-way, meaning in practice, after dropping someone off, the car will need to return without a person. Say you have a core commute time of 2.5 hours and take people on 30 minute journeys; you've managed to turn 3 cars into 1 [1], but at the cost of increasing miles by 60%. It's somewhat questionable if such a conversion has positive ROI.

* existing contrary evidence: You see plenty of private car ownership in areas with cheap labor (Chinese cities come to mind). Even cheap taxis aren't sufficiently solving transit needs.

[1] Yes, you could also pick up multiple people.. but now you introduce inconvenience again!
Staring at a phone is not good for your eyes, due to the short distance. A small SE phone for critical/mobile tasks and iPad for reading is a practical combo.
I rarely use mine but keep it for 2 reasons.

1. I "feel" like there might be something I want to watch at some point. Just kinda in the back of my head.

2. Its 10$/mo that I'm not even going to notice missing.

As their price increases I'll likely cancel. There is something about being at or under 10$ vs being over that triggers me to reevaluate even if I still wouldn't notice the extra couple bucks.
Driverless cars are IMHO a classic example of technology looking for a problem to solve.

My car’s utilization rate is about 8%. The remaining 92% of the time it’s sitting idle and since I work in a metropolitan area I even get to pay $190 per month to have it sit idle in a parking garage while I work.

My car is an enormous expense. It’s my second largest expense outside of my house. And it sits idle 92% of the time. I pay $900 per year to insure it, I pay to register it, get it inspected, pay for maintenance, depreciation, etc.

Autonomous cars run by service companies like Lyft and Uber will dramatically reduce costs for anyone driving their own cae today. Eventually overall car utilization will flip from 8% utilization to something like 90% utilization making transportation drastically more affordable.

And like you said, you get to work (or sleep or FaceTime with your kids) on your commute.
> But don't feel put off by this, we actually have a lot of fun in the terminal.

I believe you. I grew up on a C64 and later DOS and really, I don't miss it. It's nice to have the console just in case but I don't want it to become something I have to use again. It always was that "waste of time" you're describing there and I've never seen it the other way around. I can do that swishing with one hand. One finger even or my nose if I have to. A double click does it. A GUI where I can see all the options, select them, apply and run. So...human.

Every time I use my Linux laptop I find myself googling up commands or god knows what weird solutions to problems that should be easy and are in their equivalent on Win. It's such a waste of time and I feel lost if I can't go online to do it.

There is a long way for Linux to get there and I see a solution where you can have both. It does not contradict itself. But the biggest problem out there I see is the aversion (or even hate) in relevant parts of the Linux community towards everything GUI.
Likewise Maximilian Schwarzmüller on Udemy: teaching Vue, Typescript, React, Angular, etc.

You don't realize who bad most tutorials/courses are until you encounter one that is as logical, well-explained, and progressive as Maximilian's are.
People often say self driving cars have to be better than humans but they often neglect to ask "what % of the population does it have to be better than?".

Today's self driving cars are already better than some drivers. You don't have to look farther than r/IdiotsInCars. I would say that if self driving cars are better than 50% of the population, that would be good enough. Removing most of the accident prone individuals would be greatly beneficial already.
I can see the value in micro frameworks for the back-end as there can be tight constraints e.g. latency/throughput or startup time (serverless).

On the front-end though, I don't see why I would need to know more than one. You can pick up Vue in a day to make a simple ToDo or other app with REST calls with or without central state. You can then add to that knowledge for other uses and share knowlege other devs and google for what you don't know.

With bare-bones type frameworks, you're pretty much on your own just rebuilding patterns in JS. This is the most common reason for why Lisp isn't more popular. It's because they use Lisp and build a custom DSL/framework for the app then build the app with it. This means that two app developers who might have built almost the same product at different companies can't share what they've learned.

The only time this might make sense is if it's almost all static HTML and you want some jQuery to update a small part of it. Even then it's hard to know that it won't grow into an SPA eventually.
Fever effect
> It’s interesting in a subscription environment that engagement is still seen as the primary draw. Clearly the bean counters have seen that if a user engages with the platform more than x hours per day/week/month they’re y percent more likely to keep the service.

The first sentence is not evidence for the conclusion. It's very possible that engagement is seen as the primary draw for no other reason than that that is how television measures success, and Netflix is a television business.

It's also possible that someone decided to check whether the traditional metrics still made sense for Netflix, but it's certainly not something you should just assume.
Even now both Candy Crush and Pokémon GO are both in the top three mobile games by daily revenue - https://thinkgaming.com/app-sales-data/
That table stops at 2016 with driver comp at 43%, and the share was still growing at 3%/yr, and 43% savings is already a lot, so I'm not sure why you're writing labor savings off.

There's also efficiency gains to be had since computers don't need sleep, could have reduced insurance premiums, etc.

I also expect that with lighter vehicles, the cost of labor is an even higher percentage of total costs.
I think what OP means is that for someone whose goal is to start a successful business, using a more obscure and new framework is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. There's nothing significant enough that a framework like this provides that justifies 1) the difficulty finding people with appropriate experience, 2) relying on something that may become unmaintained, and 3) an immature ecosystem that means having to deal with tricky problems as you build more complex functionality because you're among the first people to need it.

Of course, there's the "just looking to build something (serious or not) and not concerned about it becoming a profitable business" group of people - like you, perhaps - and that's great! But it generally takes a lot of enthusiasts before a library becomes accepted as mainstream and a certain amount of luck is required for that to happen.
All that stuff is private and is never disclosed to anyone without a court order; or at least that is supposed to be how it works.

Yellowpages told the public. That is the point.
Does anyone have recommended settings for H.265 encoding of 1080p, which is comparable in quality to H.264? The former seems less sharp, using default HB presets.
Because it's hard to recover those hours entirely unless you just plain don't get into a car.

Rides are often too short to context switch into doing anything useful.

Even then there are all sorts of situations today where people are being transported in a car not requiring focus -- but aren't effectively recovering this time:

* Riding in a Lyft: I suppose in practice someone could whip out a laptop, but you rarely see it happen. Rides too short, induces carsickness, etc.

* Riding in a vehicle that is L2 autonomous. While not legal or particularly safe, in practice, someone driving an Autopiloting Tesla can read and respond to emails. (i.e. similar situation as being in a Lyft)
There's something in human nature that finds meaning in turbulence, friction, conflict, movement. A sense of being challenged, pushing past limits, propelling into
excitement and change. When you reach a state where you have all your needs met and don't need to go any further, there still remains a sense that there's more left undone. Comfort can be equated with stagnation. It's a Nietzschean notion. A will-to-danger (not to sound too crazy). There's a sense of being domesticated that adds a subtle discomfort to the comfort.

I've worked blue collar and white collar jobs, and it was the blue collar jobs that made me feel more alive, because I was around dangerous tools, hazards, and actuating my body like it was supposed to be outside exposed to the elements. I went home after and my rest felt deserved and truly regenerative, like my body was drinking it in. The white collar work, though it pays better and offers more comfort and is more cognitively demanding, feels at the same time too breezy, too safe.

It seems like a really stupid argument, that things can be bad because they're too good, affluenza and so on, but there's something to it.
It doesn't really matter if the law is already passed. Undoing a law is harder than preventing a law, but not by all that much.
I personally agree, but most people like cars as they are now, even in SF and LA; only in NYC is public transit really good enough that there is a critical mass of non-car owners voting to keep up the public transit.

I live in silicon valley, and the traffic isn't SF or LA bad yet, but it's pretty bad, and it's also clear that the voters around here aren't prepared to vote in usefu public transit; (one could make the argument that VTA is proof that voters are prepared to pay for public transit but aren't willing to allow useful public transit)

The upshot is that most people outside of NYC don't think automotive transportation is broken. Most people prefer automotive transportation. I personally am with you; driving when you could be on transit is nuts, but I'm clearly in the minority.
Maybe a consequence of the once habbit of adding lead to gas?
Most of the blogs I've read only show a single path through the minefield - the one that worked for them in their environment. If you have a different starting point, or a slightly different requirement along the way, they are often useless.

That's not teaching, it's boasting.
is that true? I mean, that staring at a screen degrades your vision?

I haven't read anything convincing on the subject.
I'm an atheist and my default reaction to any talk of knowing what God wants normally makes me bristle. I also believe that intentions matter and in this case they are good.

Here's a wonderful short piece by Andy Weir (who wrote The Martian) that I am in love with and resonates with the very bit that you disliked. It's worth 2 minutes of your time:

http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
This is so bad. A step backwards into imperative hell. Imperative, magic, programming with strings hell. And it looks like this person hasn't used, or at least learned from, any of the dozens of much more mature and robust versions of this.
There is nothing wrong with having comfort, but if you seek to grow and fulfil your potential (either in career, as a person, spiritually, etc), comfort is a trap you can easily get stuck in.

Maybe you have a good job, but feel like your career isn't going anywhere, but rather than switching to a different role you stay where you are because you like it there. That's comfort.

Plus a lot of people over think what comfort they need and waste a lot of energy on it. Theres a photo of Steve Jobs from the 80s in an empty apartment with a few possessions, where apparently he is comfortable with living like that. I don't know exactly what the story is with the photo, and it's a bit of an extreme example, but imagine instead of working on building his company, he spent his sparetime assembling IKEA furniture, then buying a TV and VHS recorder, then renting movies from the movie store (and physically taking them back).
The Cell article and the In the Pipeline post explain more clearly: this system plans synthesis of the same final molecule by different pathways. The only patents it can detour around are process patents. Since the final product is the same, its properties also remain the same.
I rushed to get the small xperia phone. I had to specially order it because nobody carries it here in Canada.
To propose a less cynical alternative, high screen time means users are deriving a lot of utility from the service and are unlikely to end their subscriptions.
I appreciate the way you relayed this. My intention wasn't to troll or beat a dead horse.

I think a lot of us are spending too much time troubleshooting dependency nightmares versus actually solving problems for our clients/employers.

The popularity of projects like Laravel Mix indicate that there may be a problem grokking all this stuff.
It seems to me that html css and JavaScript are better suited for the job than Python, if you want to do anything complex at all. But I’m probably wrong.
Very cool. Any plans to sell kits or put DIY instructions online?
The 'type'ing with PropTypes which required much typing. Also having to edit 4 or more places to add one thing. Let's see there's where the UI calls the action, the action, the api request, the reducer and finally the render of the data along with any new proptypes you introduced copied to each consumer.

I imagine it could be better with a different state management library or maybe ReactReason or TypeScript. The other thing I really like about Vue is how the layout and logic stay separated. With React and JSX there's always code all over the place: class methods, regular methods, lambdas, inline '&&' throughout the JSX. The way Vue handles events is far simpler.

I do however see the value in all of this with React when working on a large team. It all adds up to safety. I haven't yet worked on a Vue app that has grown complex enough to feel any of that necessary as where even a simple React app's structure is already complex.
drinking alcohol has been used as a medication(lessens pain) in the past so not to far off the mark.