skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> That's capitalism.

That's an utterly meaningless statement. You haven't even defined "capitalism", let alone what it means for something to "be" capitalism. This is political dog-whistling, the opposite of any rational argument.

> The Uber app was a straightforward experience, until they started loading it up with ads and tip screens. Paid Hulu and Netflix tiers have ads too, when previously they didn't.

This is intentionally deceptive and misleading. Uber is the only one of these that is actually correct, and it's a morally bankrupt company in the first place. Hulu and Netflix, on the other hand, have tiers that don't have ads, which is objectively not double-dipping.

> If that's a "terrible argument", there should be numerous counterexamples of companies doing the opposite.

First, no, that's false. There are many reasons why counterexamples would be rare or nonexistent - most obviously, because customers used to getting a free product tend to be extremely unhappy if you now tell them that they have to pay.

You also ignored every one of my points, which soundly rebutted your argument, and explained why it was bad - that your argument is utterly unrelated to microtransaction systems in particular, that you still have to have a alternative monetization system for when ads are removed, and that microtransactions will make the ad problem better.

Second, there are numerous counterexamples of companies that charge consumers directly without double-dipping - Google One, Dropbox, Remember the Milk, World of Warcraft, LegendKeeper, ChatGPT, most video games, Notion, Slack, etc.

Third, there are specific examples of companies moving away from ad-supported models to paid subscription models (without keeping ads), which is likely what you were trying to claim that "double-dipping" was: Medium, Evernote, and the New York Times, despite the aforementioned extreme aversion of consumers to starting to pay for something that they previously got for free.
> Do apple at the same time and I'll support it.

For better or for worse, that's not how these things work.

Each antitrust case is almost wholly independent, with the only things that connect them being potential precedent set by previous ones, and any evidence or testimony that comes from one company to hang the other.

While it would surely be satisfying to see one big rollup of "big tech antitrust breakups" announced at once, and while it would help to mitigate the potential of breaking up one company to strengthen its rivals, our system just isn't set up to allow that sort of thing in any fashion.

If you want Google to be broken up, you have to support Google being broken up without knowing if Apple will even lose their antitrust case, let alone what the remedies might be. (Not, of course, that our opinion has any significant sway over these things in the first place!)
Sound transmission can be reduced in dense urban housing.
> And I'd do the same with Meta, Apple, etc.

When I worked at Apple in SWE I worked on macOS and iOS (and tvOS and ipadOS). None of the things I worked on were sold as individual SKUs. The money came from selling hardware. Software was a thing that helped sell the hardware since the OS turned it from a hunk of electronics into a product.

How could you possibly propose Apple be split up? The same base OS is used in all their products so you can't split out macOS and iOS. The hardware all comes out of the same hardware engineering group.

All splitting up Apple does is reduce competition because there would be the iPhone company that takes all the engineering resources. The remaining rump companies would need to back fill engineering resources at great expense. If the rump companies "partner" with the iPhone company they're just less efficient versions of the old similar company. Either that or they just get bought by another company and there's less competition or ownership by a geopolitical rival.

The break-ups of Standard Oil and AT&T were workable because they could easily be split among divisional or geographic lines. Splitting up Google or Apple is either completely ineffective as it's just creating "partners" or the rump companies die out because they can't leverage higher margin parts of the larger company.
Search would sell ad space to whatever company offers the best rate. If it's currently profitable for Google, it still would be, just other ad companies would have the option to offer a better rate.
Pixelorama: A powerful open-source pixel art multitool made in Godot
Does a browser need to make money? Chrome is mostly open source as far as I know. Maybe it could move to a model like Linux where you have a benevolent dictator overseeing things and if a company wants something supported in chrome they can fund a developer to make the work happen.

As far as security and support perhaps companies like Microsoft which use parts of chrome as basis for Edge could employ people who can fix issues upstream.
Your solution is for SomaticPirate to personally go to Congress like Mister Smith Goes to Washington and take the floor (somehow) and tell the representatives that they're mad as hell and not gonna take it any more? And then Congress will be so swayed by SomaticPirate's logic and rhetoric and passion that they'll burn the millions of dollars they're getting from corporate lobbyists and set aside their deeply entrenched partisanship, embrace, roll up their sleeves, undo their ties and govern like it's 1799?

Do you think that's how government works in the real world?
What really annoys me is that that there are like dozens of Android phones on sale in major stores right now, from different manufacturers, and they are all the same. All featureless ~6 inch slabs where the only difference seems to be the arrangement of the camera lenses on the back, even on the software side they are all pretty much the same.

I understand that we have found some kind of an optimum, that it is the form that sells the best and what most people want, but with so many manufacturers and models, there should be room for some niches. Where is the craziness from the early days? All the gadgets Samsung was known for, the physical keyboards, the small phones, the huge phones, the styluses, etc...

It seems the only exceptions you can find are overpriced folding phones, and some rugged phones. You may get a few more options from brands most people never heard of, usually only available online, often directly from China. But even with that, if you want something that doesn't have the iPhone form factor, your options are very limited.

If 100 different phones are available, it would be nice if one of them was for 1% of the people who want something different.
The live stream was fine, and everyone that wanted to got in. Started late, but they always do with Elon.

The content was the problem -- super softball mild conversation. Elon stayed away from sensitive issues and Trump spouted a lot of lies about his great accomplishments.
Stanford: The Age of AI, Eric Schmidt [video]
> All of these controversies over Supreme Court decisions really come down to people who are advocating for positions and regulations which are unachievable through the normal political, legislative process in the US getting upset that the Supreme Court is not allowing them to enact these policies through backdoors and loopholes rather than the democratic process.

Is that you, Justice Gorsuch?
Say, isn't this is the opposite of the conclusion of the article?
i disable all notifications except texts from my spouse and phone calls (from anyone). that’s my suggestion, it’s good balance. :)
Belatedly coming back to this, but thank you for sharing! I'd not heard that name in a loooonnnngggg time and am currently enjoying the trip down memory lane.
Thank you for your feedback. I've now fixed the page title. understand your preference for a one-time payment option over a recurring subscription model, and will consider adding this option in the future.
Congress is broken! So fix it
Revive the regular process and do this by electing people who support it

Limited debate is NOT democracy
A motion for cloture is NOT democracy
An appointed judge deciding policy is NOT democracy
Discussion (152 points, 8 hours ago, 67 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41237542
I can give you the bill itself[0] and a few related pieces[1][2][3]

[0] https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/murray-r...

[1]https://www.mediamatters.org/immigration/myths-and-facts-sur...

[2]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-republicans-blo...

[3]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-bo...
You're looking for https://stathead.com/baseball/ but it is, for better or worse, a subscription service. You can get the raw stats from https://www.baseball-reference.com but you'd have to make your own filters to get splits like that. I have no idea if these surface highly on search engines (I guess not), but thankfully I've used primary sources for statistical information and raw data for decades and simply remember what they are without needing a search engine. I'm good as long they continue to exist, I guess.
Former Google CEO blames remote work for company's struggles
Blog author here -- I couldn't have said it better. If you'd like to meaningfully contribute to the project, we're hiring :)
I got an idea! Anti-mass!

Anti-mass is mass where Gravity goes Out instead of In.

The anti-mass and mass accelerated away from eachother at the start and the redshift is it's repulsion away.
Discussion (60 points, 6 hours ago, 20 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41239096
The video game industry has already solved this problem with engines like Unreal that can compile to PC, Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo. There's certainly no reason why you shouldn't be able to just compile the same phone app from the same IDE to both iOS and Android. I believe the architectures are basically the same but with different operating systems.

There's also no good reason why you should have to distribute your software on iOS through a monopoly app store or why Android should hide the ability to install software from non-Google app stores or the internet behind a scary "security" warning. That "security" warning, while better than what Apple does, is itself a monopolistic practice that should be illegal.
Depending on the license of the proprietary software and who is creating the software derived from both of them, that derivative work could easily be in violation of both licenses. lol
I think you are mixing some things up. Starship doesn’t launch on FH, it launches on Super Heavy, which is its only first stage option.

A full Falcon Heavy stack can take 63,800kh to LEO. A Starship stack can take 150,000kg to LEO. The available Δv is substantially higher.
There is no reason for a smartwatch to be round, ever. It badly hurts functionality. Why would I care more about holding on to a hundreds of years old skeuomorphism than your device actually functioning well?
> My response was "You're a global sentiment engine""

More like a sentiment engine for bot operators.
https://archive.today/8qXrE
The way to hit Apple with antitrust is to break off the App Stores themselves, since that's the point of monopolization.

Make Apple's apps all operate by exactly the same rules as everyone else's—including rules governing private APIs.

Make the formerly-Apple App Store compete with other App Stores in a similar way to what they've introduced in the EU, but on a more even footing.

Personally, I'm still not entirely sold on this being a good idea—but IMO it's the one way of breaking up Apple that actually makes any sense.
Is it? I know many people who've wound up in the emergency room with some eye damage. I don't know if these incidents would have significantly damaged my eyes or not, I just know they bounced off the glasses.
i probably write in too parsimonious a style compared to how people read: my complaint was not about the pixel experience, it was about the experience moving from each pixel version to the next back in earlier days, it was about the deltas.

I can learn any system, but I want one and done. I don't want to keep having to learn all the time when it comes to things like muscle memory.

i hate gestures, for example. If I could configure/control them, alright, but I don't like when some touch that used to be unnoticed or neutral suddenly starts wiping out what I'm doing. my mantra when it comes to coding UIs: job number one is never ever lose anything the user has typed
Ah, this world where a 5.8"-sized shovel is somehow considered normal.
Did you post this on the wrong article?
No Afib detection or BP reading?
It's becoming clear it's the end of a language.
I got into SCP from playing Remedy’s Control game which is based on the lore. Highly recommend the game since the vibe is perfect and visuals are beautiful.
Yeah, I've also only very rarely seen real bugs in core system features (deadlock inside glibc's allocator a decade or more ago in my case IIRC) and I must say you got a much healthier reaction.

It's definitely an actual bug not a doc bug. I've explained this a few times to people and it does seem like the natural inclination is to assume SRWLock must be supposed to do that, but I was glad to see internally Microsoft did fix this, because it's clearly the Wrong Thing™.

I see two common defences for this bug. One is "Actually, it's supposed to be unfair, you don't understand why that's a good idea". Which assumes I'm expecting a fair lock and I'm unhappy not to get it. Giving a reader the reader lock when there's a writer waiting would be unfair - and probably a bad idea but I'm open to it if somebody presents benchmarks - but giving them the writer lock is just a bug.

Another is "Actually, there is a writer waiting, and this way that writer gets the lock faster". As you wrote the example code you know that's false, there is no writer waiting, there are only readers and (in the buggy scenario) they're blocked forever for no reason.
If a company wins the game of capitalism it should be nationalized. If no one can compete with you anymore the market is better of without you. Print the stacks of money, pay who needs to be paid.

The alternative is for them to gradually absorb everything. You cant compete with them.

We've done the great privatization experiment. We can experiment with the opposite. We can fabricate arguments for and against anything, as many as we want. Only time will tell.

If the US gov takes over Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Apple it would go a long way justifying $35200000000000.- in debt? Credibility would improve dramatically.

What would happen if those companies worked together as one big government department? All the logos replaced with big bird... ehh... I mean the great seal.

All the money men gravitating towards market companies. Play the game again.

Search is actually useful, like roads. No need to have a billboard every 20 meters. It is useful as~is. Who could resist the temptation to make curvy roads so that travelers get to see more billboards?
What are you busy with? Are there any particular other subjects you would want to talk about instead?
Planning Weekly Workouts in 100 lines of Haskell
Has anyone ever tested the theory of matter that is repelled by gravity instead of attracted? They would zoom away and seperate like helium escaping the Earth.
I wonder if the dip is more about LLama3 70b training and data than a change in sentiment. The data cut-off was Dec 2023 for 70b. That looks to coincide with the reversal of the dip.
Discussion (66 points, 7 days ago, 31 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41173111
Once we have open source AI training data and AI historians they could help make real science directly available instead of pop magazines.
I was driving in Chicago late at night when this show first aired. I was so engrossed in the story I ended up in Wisconsin.
Literally every single time I’ve gone to sleep in my glasses, the weight of my head has bent the glasses into uselessness.
Well there were a lot of performances where he had no glasses of any kind…
Samsung DEX still works great with my 4 year old S10e
What if it expanded from anti-mass? Couldn't we form testable hypotheses from that?

I looked it up on the Wikipedia page for Exotic Matter and there isn't much exploration or tested theories on it.
Is it that big of a deal?

You can't just throw it on the charger for a few minutes before bed and awhile during shower in the morning?
The details are lunch and dinner. If I’m in the office at dinnertime, I’m there too late.
> In the second diagram I see ill-defined responsibilities

Why do you say this?

Yes, passing a message along to another network service is another step. But whether or not it is an additional "responsibility" is debatable I think. It depends on what your baseline is.

1. If the baseline is a synchronous, in-process RPC, then, sure, an additional network call is an extra step. (Even so, I don't necessarily view this as a problem.)

2. But if your baseline is an asynchronous RPC, remember that there is often some mechanism to report status back to the caller. (This is part of the cost of doing business in async.) There would be no net difference to pass a result forward compared to back to the caller.

Tell me if my logic is not sound. (I wonder if you have fallen for the fallacy of overlooking what is 'normal' and criticizing what is different? Just a guess. Maybe, maybe not.)

> and a looming callback hell.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using callbacks. Callback hell is a syntax problem with some languages. In particular, visually it looks unappealing to programmers. Visual appeal (or not) is not necessarily coupled to wise design decisions. Especially in distributed systems there are a different set of drivers than, say, in-browser JS constraints (event loop, rendering, etc).

Example 1: Clojure, for example, uses macros (core.async) so that programmers can write code that is indented one level deep and looks like there are no callbacks. But underneath, callbacks are still used.

Example 2: In Rust, callbacks aren't used under the hood for async/await. Instead, the syntax maps to a state machine. But the general point holds: a state machine could be hellish to write explicitly (call it "state machine hell" perhaps, haha) so Rust provides a better syntax for it.

Broader point: some people conflate how code looks in some particular language with overall quality. Beware of taking this to an extreme. I have been guilty of this from time to time, especially when doing a lot of Ruby long ago.
Correlation is also the enemy of random generators since it causes bias and makes some values easier to predict.

The number of sparkles may have some periodic correlations due to wave activity, wind, etc.

There are perhaps easier ways, involving simpler hardware, such as measuring electrical noise in a diode, etc.
Thats like saying cars run because they want to, and only make us perfect the engine, and processes that happen inside it, to fool us into thinking we have a say in whether a car will run.

Sure, it is a hypothesis, but thanks to the Scientific Method the majority of people with knowledge in the field knows its most likely BS.

Going the same "it can be for ANY reason, guys!" in any field, will not get you much far, regardless if you feel justified in your ignorance or not.
Oh right! I think I have that on a tablet. I was confusing it with the alternative to Android that Google is developing when I asked you about it. Thanks for the info.
I often run my (PCB) boards through the dishwasher after soldering components to them. To clean off any flux that might be on them.
Perhaps because they were too busy enshittifying everything they do so that they could milk more money out the of it ?
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll occasionally re-introduce a mini phone like McDonald's does with the McRib.

Somewhere there's gotta be numbers that show "there are people who buy minis, but they only buy a phone every few years, so let's make a mini every third model year" or something.
That's an interesting hypothesis but the words we use to express agreement and disagreement haven't changed much.

We don't try to retrieve articles/topics from the model, which would be affected by the cutoff, just asking it to analyze the sentiment or summarize the content provided in a prompt
This is worth reading all the way through. Ouch.
It will just end up like Qualified Immunity. "Your honor, I was wearing a green shirt, this is unprecedented territory and totally different and Congress needs to clarify".

What historical uses of the Chevron deference do you actually find objectionable? Why can't those specific instances have been pushed back on, instead of just scrapping the whole thing?
"in a single sphere"---- shows three spheres
Let's put it a different way. Are you as likely to see the same number of Pixel watches, while walking around the hallways in the Apple spaceship?
Back in the day Google gave phones and other hardware to the teams and I happily dogfooded it all. Filed bugs, the whole bit.

Then it stopped. And if I’m going to spend my own money, Google has to compete on features just like anyone else.
Not only are these AI features stuff people don't want, but obviously having a Tensor G4 in the device raises its cost. I'd rather not pay for that.

I have the Pixel "a" devices, and hope they can stay at that price point.
Am I the only one who thinks these features really don't add much to the experience?

If an annoying phone tree is going to take 3 minutes to navigate by listening to the prompts, then it will also take 3 minutes to navigate by letting the AI listen and write little buttons for me.

I didn't really save any time.

If on the other hand it could say "other users have seen this phone tree before, so here is the whole searchable tree with no waiting", that would be a noteworthy feature.
In your first link, the bill itself was introduced with:

"As Ukraine runs low on ammunition to fend off Putin’s brutal invasion, it is imperative we finally extend our support. We must also live up to our commitments to our allies around the globe and quickly get more aid to innocent civilians caught in conflict, including in Gaza, where the humanitarian crisis is especially dire. I never believed we should link policy demands to emergency aid for our allies, but Republicans insisted—so Democrats negotiated in good faith over many weeks and now there is a bipartisan deal on border policy legislation. Ukraine’s fate and so much more hangs in the balance—it’s time for Congress to act."

I don't trust that this can be represented as a border bill. The person introducing the bill seems to think it is a Ukraine (and Gaza) bill with compromises included. 80% of the money mentioned in the dot point list is going to non-border things. This tells us more about the Republican stance on foreign interventions than their feelings on borders.

Also, the effort being put into calling this a "bipartisan" bill (in everything I'm reading, it seems) is highly suspect. They can't call a bill bipartisan if one side is voting against it - it clearly isn't bipartisan.
>The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.

This is a great heuristic to practice often. I just told my wife she looks fat in her new dress, and the degree of her provocation proves the value of my statement.
A more serious question this story presents is:

What other emergent behaviour exists which is not benign?