skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Do you have a market strategy otherwise?

What is your customer base and target market? Both pricing models and numbers will come out very differently for the same underlying technical work depending on if you're aiming for fewer how-much-could-a-banana-cost-biggies (these need service agreements and someone who they can talk to on a first-name basis) or a turnkey system for every startup and corporate using Cypress out there (they just register a credit card and e-mail and start integrating).

While you are considering your margins, you're going by value-based pricing here - you focus less on how much it costs you to build and run and your bottom line and more on how valuable it is to the potential customer. Some told you hundreds of hours were saved.

It sounds like you have the pricing model for a mass-market SaaS with the pricing for the high-end.

One risk with such high value-based pricing is that assuming initial success, some happy customers might get restless after a few weeks/months/years and realize that for the price they're paying you they could actually save money by building and rolling something similar in-house. The customers who are ready to pay those prices are precisely the ones likely to do it, I think. In any case, unless your market is super niche or you have some crazy edge, you will get competitors if you're successful enough. Maybe even straight-up copycats. This is nothing bad at all but it can be good to keep in mind that you may lose customers if they're able to slaughter you on cost-performance.

Also consider that these higher-end clients likely care a lot about availability and stability. If you don't have brand-recognition or a personal reference, it can be hard to convince them to take a shot. Free trials will never be enough for them to be confident either. Initial underpricing (not too much obv) is a way to compensate for that initially.

But again, I think we need more context before we can make a fair assessment of if the price is reasonable or not.
Exactly. We need to stop playing and sounding the other side constantly.

There is enough evidence to suggest it's unsafe.
I know you're being sarcastic here. But man it depresses me how many people seem to unironically think this way.
Actually another way to do nimscript is to make a config.nims file with tasks in it.
eg:

In config.nims:

switch("hints", "off")
task hello, "say hello world":
echo "hello world"

In bash:

$ nim hello
hello world
If you are assuring us storage won't do it, the ambiguity doesn't matter, as it is on your plate to refute every last possibility. So step up and do you job and refute all possible interpretations of those terms. It's your responsibility to do so. You also have to refute all possible combinations of all the elements in the message you are responding to. But I assume you've done that, otherwise your assurance that 100% renewables can't work would be a lie.
Thank god my preferred economic model doesn't use chemicals
> What does RCS theoretically bring to the group chat table?

Interoperability.
Ask HN: What podcasts are you listening to?
I’ve tried building a habit to listen to podcasts but to no avail. I don’t feel like I’ve found the right ones yet that fit into my sweet spot. I’m interested in a few topics: biographies, software design, and learning about advanced financial investing (e.g. private equity).

What are you listening to? Would love recommendations.
will look for it, thx!
Than a well-written desktop app, maybe. Electron apps set the bar lower - for example, Microsoft sat on shipping ARM builds for Teams until this month so for a couple of years a browser was faster and used far less RAM.
It’s because I generally interact with people in my age group, i.e 10-15 years older than high schoolers.

If you ask kids in some other countries, what do they say? influencers? youtuberd?
Yes, if one is doing menial work, sure. I thought the author was a writer, which is in my opinion creative work requiring full attention.
>is a bit smug.

I choose unorthodox and provocative ideas over conservative bore of docile academic terms any day.

You call it being smug, I call it scientific confidence needed for progress.
Informed only by a degree in chemistry, it seems unlikely that either mesitylene or mercury stirred up from the sediment would cause such an acute event. The salt water mentioned in the Wikipedia articles seems substantially more plausible. But more facts will certainly improve our understanding.
We don’t know that the amounts of radon found in residential environments is harmful because it’s never been studied. The claims about the number of deaths caused are arrived at by starting with something we do have knowledge about - the massive amounts of radon in coal mines and it’s effects on miners - and then drawing a straight line on a graph, assuming there’s no threshold where radon risk drops to zero, and computing what share of lung cancer deaths would result from that model.
Every once in a comment has the mentality of, "it's not going affect me because I have reverse osmosis 9000, just get one and problem solved".

These people live life with heads in the sand while the world burns. They won't wake up even once their torso is rotisserie.
> 1 ng/L = 1,000 ppt

I don't think so. See here (the green box in the upper right corner of page 2): https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/ep...

> nanograms per liter (ng/L) = parts per trillion (ppt)

Or alternatively: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1133/conversion-factors.html
The T-Third is also slower than the bus it replaced, and that was only like 20 years ago.
I am trying to figure out how to scale this to the point where unit economics makes the most sense.

If I simply transferred current costs on to the end user, it would be too much. It would be USD 0.20 x number of tests x number of hours, e.g. a company that works 9 to 5 and has 100 tests, that is 0.201008=USD 160 per day.

However, changes the more clients you have. If I have 10 clients paying for 100 concurrent test capacity, I wouldn't need 1000 VMs, as they are unlikely to be all running tests at the same time, all the time.
> Something like 40% fit the criteria for severe depression or severe anxiety.

Psychological (indeed, medical) criteria are not necessarily all they're cracked up to be.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3303
$100B on wind and solar with no storage would outperform $50B on wind and $50B on storage. But what happens when we actually try to achieve 0% carbon emissions? Once wind and solar saturate their periods of peak production they become less and less effective because more and more of their energy goes to waste. Worse yet, peak energy demand happens in the evening right after sundown, when intermittent sources are at their lowest period of production. Mitigating fossil fuel use and actually eliminating fossil fuel use are very different goals.

Solar and wind are good for the short-term goal of small fossil fuel reductions. They are not very good at actually providing the bulk of a decarbonized grid. Storage remains a fantasy, so that leaves nuclear and hydroelectricity as the only non-intermittent carbon-free sources of energy. For places with the right geography for dams, great. For everywhere else, nuclear is the only option.

There's a few other sources of energy like geothermal and tidal power, but those are similarly geographically limited.
I’m questioning the amount (which is what the whole argument about this being impractical is based on).

Do you really need to have a store of 11% of the city’s entire yearly energy usage? Like, 5 (almost 6!) entire weeks of energy? That seems ludicrously high to me.
Have you considered archive.org?
Eight photo-centric social sites that are not Instagram
Irony is that this dismissal itself is so typical in style I sensed the presence of a twitter account by the end of the second sentence.
Yeah this stuff seems so basic right? If you're trying to be as right as possible:

- decide what success and failure are

- record your successes and failures

- adjust your priors based on your failures

I have a "what have you changed your mind about" interview question I use on both sides of the table that's really illuminating. The specifics aren't important, but what I'm looking for are the above: what were you aiming for, what did you get instead, how did that experience change you. Hopefully the other party has had lots of these and they've built up an immune system against the various things that caused them to fail, stuff like "test hypotheses", "there is no silver bullet", "everything is a tradeoff" and so on.
There is also one more focused on manufacturing from Red Bull. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iptAkpqjtMQ
Different pricing strategies:

Market Pricing: what are your competitors charging.

Cost plus: What is your investment to date and what do you see ongoing marginal costs as, and what type of pricing do you need to make this worthwhile for you financially?

nearest substitute pricing: what’s the financial savings of your product versus the competitor? Charge a price that captures some of this value (what you’re proposing)

Also be mindful of Cypress possible taking steps to improve their own run times. What will you do to stay ahead and keep your marketshare? include this in your considerations as ongoing r&d.
For me:

* Download and just run doesn't work. (e.g. Node, dotnet, cargo do this well). Hell, I've generally had more success with C++ in this regard.

* The syntax can be used in an extremely terse way, and that terseness seems to be idiomatic.
Youtube has commercials which we would like to avoid, but we had not considered twitch. Perhaps that's a good idea. We have livestreamed it before, but it's quite a commitment to keep a stream running 24/7 for 37 days.
Reading the other comments I tried the tutorial (who plays tutorials?!). They did feel faster (and thus relatively more difficult) than the random levels. Is inertia and gravity the same on all levels?

And tutorials 8 and 9... they are intended for someone to implement automation, aren't they?
The infrastructure setup. You have an idea, you can program it... but you need all the incidental complexity that goes with it is a headache for me:

- server(s) setup (either on prem or cloud)

- keeping the server secure

- auth

- logs

- monitoring

- backups

- HA/scalability

It's even worse if you don't like such topics.
You should checkout Nim! I use it extensively on embedded. Nim is fantastic to program in if you're an experienced C/C++ developer. Its safer and smarter but not not pedantic about it.

Nim compiles to C or C++ so its easy to use on any embedded platform and compiler suite. Thats still huge for embedded. Rust forces a type-trait centric programming style which makes interfacing hardware/embedded harder as you have to make type heavy HALs everywhere -- hence the lack of rtos & library support despite its relative popularity).

Its pretty trivial to re-use any C/C++ libraries which gives a big boost to the native ecosystem. I wrapped most of the esp32 idf in a few weeks: https://github.com/elcritch/nesper

The new GC (ARC) is basically a built in `shared_ptr<T>` or `Rc<T>`. You can also do stack-based programming too and the compiler enforces a safe memory accesses. The performance is great and can match or beat C/C++ if you do a few hours of tuning. Though its easy kill performance if you're lazy (e.g. parse json into a bunch of heaps objects), but that can have its place.
I'm not saying this is a cult, but the Scientology office in my city has a sign out front advertising the same vague benefits that this website claims to offer.
The only time I felt blocked by CI was at a company whose tests had a 50/50 chance of failing. The tests also took upwards of an hour to run (the engineering culture was a cult of True Believers in a terrible technology stack).

I think having something like this might have actually kept me at that job, at least a bit longer, though we had the same problem with our unit tests, and I don't even recall if Cypress was what we used (probably not, now that I think about it).
You must be inexperienced and/or naive. No firm is going force its engineers to migrate to a different package (open source or otherwise), the cost of relearning everything is simply too high. This was true in the 90s as well.

The case for hobbyists is a bit different as they're often more willing to try something like FreeCAD that's missing a bunch of features or makes them far more tedious to implement. Try dealing with parameters in FreeCAD. Or, better yet, recreate this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj9Sc5PPTnU
> The reason academic institutions don't want to talk about it is the same reason that religious institutions don't want to talk about child abuse - it makes a mockery of their whole enterprise.

This is why in science, replication of past work is essential. Every new Ph.D.
student should replicate a paper's results in their area of interest as a warm-up exercise.

In Information Retrieval (the part of Computer Science concerned with search for information - search engines etc.), conferences like ECIR have regular reproduceability tracks, where such works of scrutiny get published, and are highly regarded.

There needs to be a cultural change to the effect that genuine errors and fraud can happen, but we can weed it out to an extent by independently repeating past work.
Like i said in other comments renovation and flipping can be done without owning as a service. It would be just like it is now with flippers paying the seller but not getting ownership at all.

You want to sell your house and it has 200k valuation? A flipper will give you 200k so you can buy another house, renovate without owning it and then at sell for say 250k and the benefit to the seller would be splitting the 50k with the renovator with whatever percentage they agree on. The key difference being the flipper now has an incentive to sell soon instead of wait years until the house costs say 500k because the original seller wants his cut soon so they can move on.

Flippers will not be doomed but flipping will be less profitable than it is now unless you do it at scale of course.

For your first point is it not obvious I meant at the time you place the house on market you if you owned multiple houses?
No, the burden of proof is one the one saying that X is a viable approach. You're asking people to prove a negative.

Here's a thought: we don't need fission nor renewables nor storage. Fusion will give us unlimited cheap energy! Now you have to refute every possible implementation of fusion energy - even methods we haven't built or tested - otherwise you're lying. Step up and do your job refuting all possible implementations of fusion!

This is the kind of logic you're making with energy storage, and it's faulty logic. If someone wants to claim the viability of fusion, they actually have to deliver a working fusion reactor and at a viable cost. It's not the burden of other people to disprove every possible implementation of fusion.
How do you implement a leaderboard that can’t be spoofed with REST POST calls from curl or postman?(Genuine question for my own JavaScript game) doesn’t need to be perfect just a barrier that makes it painful to spoof easily
I agree. It's hard to work when you have a 10-minute test running, either I wait/do busywork, or I start doing something else and then I don't want to interrupt that line of work to context shift back to a failed test.
My point is, I don't like this defeatist attitude of "well there's no way to know, so we should just do more of the same". Just because it's a very hard problem doesn't mean there isn't a lot more we could do. And a lot of the chemicals causing problems today could have been ruled out with far less effort than haphazardly testing it on the whole world population.

I don't see why so many people these days need to reduce everything to this type of false dichotomy.

And it's also a question of how much concern is enough? I would argue that currently the threshold is set far, far too high.
At Series A / Series B, they can’t think about serious commitments (and this sounds like one) in increments smaller than $10k. I’d try that and, if you get any pushback, ask what it would have to do to be worth $10k.

(A month. Bill quarterly or yearly at their option; raise prices annually to capture increase in use.)

Remember that their alternative is not “spin up VPSes” it is “staff an engineering rotation to maintain this service” which will cost them minimally a million annually.
Okay — but running 60 copies of a small EC2 for 1 min is $0.009 to $0.04

Running 100x test suites would be $0.90 to $4, in server costs.

Charging 25-100x the server costs is optimistic, at best.
But you can party in the evening and be in bed by midnight.
The second definitely doesn’t require luck. I built a $3k/mo app in a couple hours a day for a few weeks.

People think it’s all luck because they build things just hoping someone will buy it and when they don’t “ah well, bad luck on this one”.

Instead you need to find a problem people actually have first and then build something to solve that. Then its much more likely that someone will pay for that solution.

It is not luck when you hear several people say something like, “I really wish it was easier to do x” and then you build a solution that makes doing x easier.

It most certainly is luck if you just think of a random cool idea and it happens to be profitable.
- A custom rom can still get updated google play services.

- most users currently don’t get support, so idk what you’re arguing for here

- you already have to rely on countless 3rd parties in order to use your phone
Another thing to consider is that most engineers do not run all integration tests locally before committing them, simply because they take long time, i.e. A typical workflow is: commit changes -> raise a PR -> wait for all tests to complete -> [if tests fails, go back to step 1] This hugely impacts developer ability to switch context, because they need to stash code, switch branches, etc.

If all integration tests could complete in pre-push commit hook (which is reasonable if they take less than a minute), then we would dramatically reduce the context switching involved in day to day engineering.
Same here (Luxembourg, Europe).
I agree that special relativity was born out of a empirical question.

However, that a theory explains a certain known phenomenon does not really increase how trustworthy it is. It is trivial to construct a theory that explains a certain phenomenon, the it is slightly less trivial (that's a bit of an understatement) to construct one which does not contradict any other known phenomena. However to empirically "confirm" a theory requires that the theory predicts a phenomenon which has not been observed and is empirically observed.
This book explains the theory and practice of TDD better than anything else:

https://www.amazon.com/Working-Effectively-Legacy-Michael-Fe...

In particular that book considers the problem of retrofitting an existing system to have good tests, so it covers all the bases for a system that runs in production and is in front of customers. Feathers is particularly an advocate for fast tests, he thinks a 1ms test is a little slow.

A counter to that is some subsystems are prone to race conditions and a necessary test could be to stress the subsystem with 200 threads. This automated test is of great value but takes 30 seconds to run which is quick to do once but adds up to slower development cycles when you make any change.
This is only common and normal in corrupt countries.
What stovetop can reach 1465 °C (2669 °F)?
This is great advice for a startup trying to figure out pricing!
Czech uranium reserves were severely depleted in the 1950s in order to supply Soviet nuclear arms industry.

(Political dissenters were forced to work in those mines in horrible conditions.)
I don't get the satire - you would propose the same regulation for individuals ? Don't see anything corporation specific about the comment.
> Regulation works when experts really do have the answer.

I think there are other significant factors to consider as well.

In the US at least I think regulation, in our current day, has failed in many areas due to 1) the slowing down of decision makers to become informed and make decisions (see congress for stagnation in passing legal regulations) 2) industries or large industry players have waged effective influence campaigns in mainstream and scientific communities to push a friendly agenda or inject uncertainty which has nock on affects when it comes to funding (see pesticides like neonics and glyphosates, oil and gas companies with respect to global warming and plastic recycling, tobaco companies and smoking causing cancer, …), and 3) a certain degree of capture in regulatory agencies by industry (industry players later work for the regulatory agency or the reverse, as well as other tactics). 4) the politicization of regulation (not sure how much this can be helped though).

It’s a mess.

> We could switch from "allow by default" to "deny by default", but I'm not even sure that would help.

There may be a middle ground here. As a chemic becomes more widely used that could trigger required enhanced testing by a regulatory agency as well as research grants looking into their safety.

And as a chemical becomes ever more widely used rigorous long-term studies could be required.

I’m not sure what the right long term answer is but I can’t help but think there is some fundamental mismatch of top down regulation by regulatory bodies in a market based system where companies are innovating and also creating these harms / negative externalities.
In the former regulators are slow, reactionary, and often substantial harm must have already occurred for a regulation to be passed. The latter is a dynamic and fast moving system where companies are ruled by a fitness function which is often myopic and locally greedy.

It seems introducing another market for regulation could offer a solution by using one dynamic system to regulate another. Carbon credits is an example of this. However two or more interacting systems will make things much harder to reason about and may have their own significant flaws if not designed well (for example trees are planted but then die earlier than expected or are later harvested after the carbon credits have been sold).
I like using cast iron pans for searing meat since they have a large thermal mass and you can get them ripping hot without damaging them. Being able to put them in the oven is also nice for meat and such. I also use them on the grill sometimes e.g. for making fajita veggies without smoking up the house.

I often want to de-glaze the pan after cooking the meat to make a pan sauce. I have had issues sometimes if the sauce is too acidic the seasoning starts flaking up.

I don't understand how people cook eggs in cast iron. I have an antique cast-iron pan with the smooth surface and a pretty good seasoning but it's not even as nonstick as my crappy old ceramic non-stick pans. I do like my eggs to be very soft and delicate but maybe its okay for crispy fried eggs.

Overall I think it's worth having one since they're cheap, even though they're only really great at a few things.
The claim still works without the element of racism. In the extreme car-centric areas of the US you're regarded a weirdo for walking anywhere by members of your own race.
The lot is zoned for 14 units, has 4 currently. If we give the 2 other families that live here a few hundred thousand dollar entitlement it will never be developed.

Your proposal is insane. They've paid 600 dollars (rent control) a month for (let's say) 10 years. 60k buy in for a quarter of a 1.2m dollar property? I'd take that deal as a renter.
The opposite of these terms are also null and void, because then Autodesk would not be able to impose any new government-mandated sanctions or other mandatory misfeatures.