Maybe the site needs a quick explainer of what Elo ranking is. Perhaps people should have to pass a multiple choice question about it before they can start ranking.
Conflating Elo ranking with goodness is shockingly dimwitted - I'd think it much below Hacker News commentators, but apparently that's not the case. Of course Hitler would have a high Elo ranking; he's objectively one of the most powerful and influential humans of all time.
HackerNews, I love you, but some of the comments in here are detached from reality. You'd be hard pressed to find any social media company that gets more traffic from desktop than mobile in the year 2023. This site is the exception, not the rule.
This is false. I only browse reddit in the browser version on my phone. It annoys you all the time to install their app, but you can read and post perfectly fine.
Your rebuttal is false and the parent is accurate. Reddit will throw up a full screen interstitial on most popular subreddits preventing even viewing and redirect you to download the app. This is on the mobile (not old.reddit desktop-only) site. Their UX is shite and full of dark patterns.
If you log in, the mobile site is perfectly usable. You might also have to set a preference as well (like the old.reddit preference). It has been so many years of using it this way I don't remember.
You can on old.reddit.com. Their redesign was so unpopular with users they agreed to keep supporting the old design which doesn't nag you into downloading the app.
And I can guarantee that there are approximately five people using Reddit via a browser on mobile. Mobile means the app, to a precision of two or three significant digits.
As one of the five, I didn't believe this so went trying to determine more realistic numbers.
Per the link below, mobile web is anywhere from 15 to 60% of mobile traffic. Reddit isn't listed, and it's 4 years old, so who knows, but I'd imagine it falls somewhere in the same range, probably closer to the lower end?
I'd wager you're completely wrong. Reddit at this point gets a ton of traffic from search. Remember the old 90/9/1 rule. 90% of users are just browsing cat pictures and are eyeball fodder for ads.
old.reddit is starting to come apart at the seams, tho. (maybe it's because r/subs don't keep the style sheets up to date or something? i dunno) in many cases you can't up or downvote, there's no search button, there's no sidebar with the flair and the rules/mods, etc.
I used "style sheet" in a generic sense, rather than to mean CSS (I remember Microsoft (Multitool) Word v1.0) and I was referring to the layout of a subreddit home page which I've never played with but I'm aware the moderators have some control over.
I know how to turn off Page Style in Firefox (manually for every page) which is CSS related, but otherwise have no idea what you are referring to
I am one of the five. I use the Reddit website on iOS Safari and have for years. I only read one subreddit, so my usage pattern may be different than a normal reddit user. The only thing that annoys me is the ever persistent ‘website or app’ modal dialogue but I’m used to it now.
I try to use mobile websites instead of apps because I feel like the tracking data a company can get from a web browser is less granular than app tracking data.
I'd wager that most Reddit users these days, casual or not, are only dimly aware that the platform even exists as a website. Or at least a large plurality.
According to [1], Reddit has 52 million daily active users (and 430 monthly users), while according to [2] the Reddit app has 17 million daily active users. Both numbers are from 2021. So only about a third of DAUs would be using the Reddit app. Apollo has 50,000 yearly subscribers, so is probably more on the negligible side.
> Apollo has 50,000 yearly subscribers, so is probably more on the negligible side overall.
Note this figure does not include free users, nor the users of the plethora of other clients... But regardless
Clearly, Reddit has deemed 3rd party clients pose a huge cost to their platform, otherwise they wouldn't charge through the roof. IMO, all these numbers are meaningless given this fact.
I’m not sure what Reddit’s rationale is here. Third-party app users are less than 1% (can’t find the link where I read this). The most plausible explanation is that they want to get rid of a potential future threat, because I don’t believe that current third-party usage constitutes any substantial loss. Otherwise buying out Apollo as mentioned in TFA should have been an easy decision.
Wouldn’t an ad support guideline be enough for third party apps to continue coexisting with the official Reddit app?
Call it that, or sdk. But if ad based revenue is so important for Reddit, getting Apollo and the rest to properly display and track ads is imho a no brainer and would totally solve the issue at hand.
As I said maybe I am too naive, and I only see part of the picture.
We’ve got lots of web devs and startup space folks on this site, I guess somebody must know how to look this sort of thing up?
I googled “percentage of reddit mobile traffic in app” but got a bunch of marketing sites, and wasn’t able to sort out which ones were bullshit. I bet there’s a good source for this sort of thing though.
In any case, we don’t need to wager right? It seems like this ought to be measurable.
Yeah I've used reddit daily for over a decade. I just use a mobile browser. I tried a couple apps a few years back, but just when back to mobile browser after a few weeks.
> You're not there to make the world a better place, to belong to a family, to improve anything. Just do your job and go back to your life at the end of the day.
Speak for yourself. I do want to make the world a better place and I'm fortunate enough to have a job where I do that. It's rewarding; my life has purpose during working hours.
> Speak for yourself. I do want to make the world a better place and I'm fortunate enough to have a job where I do that. It's rewarding; my life has purpose during working hours.
That's your problem, not mine. God forbid I'm ever in such a situation.
San Francisco has become a city of one-party rule, which simply does not work. It never will. When a political party's power goes unchecked, it always becomes corrupt, incompetent, or both. This is universal and irrespective of ostensible ideology.
The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (second link) contains statistics from 2019. However, it seems to be the most recent edition. I have no idea if or where the 2020-2022 ones exist.
If someome could point me to them or explain why they don't exist, I'd appreciate it.
America is a land of extremes. We actually have relatively high standard of living thanks to extremely high wages, which allow us to live lives of relative luxury. We also have high wealth inequality and tolerate many horrors - some unfathomable to other developed countries (e.g. gun deaths).
Arguably the latter is a symptom of the former. So there are broadly 2 approaches to tackle the problem - reduce inequality, or use draconian measures to control the people who got the wrong end of the inequality stick.
Nothing seems complicated if you wave away all the details. You made quite a leap even in the first link of the chain ("wealth inequality => poverty"). I don't see how poverty follows from wealth inequality. That there are people who earn more or have amassed more wealth than me, sometimes fantastically so, doesn't make me any poorer. In fact, often times my own life is enriched by the value created by those who ended up becoming wealthy. Of course, this is not to suggest that every rich person created value for others to get there, or that people who create value for others necessarily become rich.
The link between poverty and homelessness, as discussed elsewhere in the thread, is mostly due to policy choices local to SF and California as a whole that greatly disincentivize building more homes to keep up with demand. I come from a country where (with some exaggeration) it feels like an urban park might have higher population density than San Francisco. There's no reason why one of the most desired markets in the world should be that way, other than through artificially restricting the supply.
> Countries that have affordable housing and jobs don't have this problem.
Very few countries, whether housing is cheap or expensive and whether jobs pay well or poorly, have this problem of people strung about, high in public, engaging in antisocial behavior. Most countries don't turn a blind eye towards drug addiction from a personal liberty standpoint, which I think is quite a uniquely American concept. Most will imprison people for possessing or consuming any and punish with death those who traffic. There is broad cultural acceptance of behaving in this way.
There's no leap, but we don't even need to have that conversation.
Poverty exists, which leads to homelessness.
This is not because of "local SF and California" policies. Homelessness is a problem in nearly every North American cities, from Vancouver to New York. Large cities in Europe also struggle with it, albeit to a lesser degree.
I'm not against building more housing, but no matter how much you build, not everyone will be able to afford it.
And I don't know where you got the idea that the USA is "turning a blind eye" to these problems. There's no blind eye. The US has the highest carceral population in the world. Cities already spent hundreds of millions on police. The problems are not being ignored, the solutions attempted just don't work.
> Homelessness is a problem in nearly every North American cities, from Vancouver to New York.
It's an order of magnitude higher in San Francisco at ~2.5% of the population compared to New York at ~0.8% and Vancouver at ~0.3%. SF isn't the only city with homeless people, but it likely has it to the highest degree, with other undesirable traits like open-air drug use, public defecation, and property crimes.
> no matter how much you build, not everyone will be able to afford it.
That's true, but we should still build more so that more people will be able to afford housing. No policy choice will completely eliminate poverty or homelessness nor reduce it for free without opportunity cost, so as a society we have to make prudent tradeoffs that help the most people for the least cost.
> Poverty exists, which leads to homelessness.
Are you suggesting that we're capable of totally eliminating poverty?
What's your point? What are you even arguing here? You started at questioning if wealth inequality lead to the current situation, and now you abandoned that point and moved on to claiming SF is unique (it's not), and going off on tangents that you yourself admit don't solve the problem.
Places with lower wealth inequality seem to have fewer mentally ill drug addicts terrorising the public.
Putting aside arguments of social responsibility and taking a purely self-interested perspective, it's typically cheaper and more effective to provide for these people than it is to lock them up. When there's nothing to take away, enforcement doesn't provide any deterrent and frequently leads to an escalation of behaviour instead.
That strikes me as a cherry-picked statistic. San Francisco is one of the most crime-ridden cities in America.
> San Franciscans face about a 1-in-16 chance each year of being a victim of property or violent crime, which makes the city more dangerous than 98 percent of US cities, both small and large.
SF's homicide rate is low, lower in fact than Miami.
But, its non-violent crime and property crime numbers are through the roof which makes it feel incredibly unsafe.
Miami, on the other hand, actually has a higher homicide rate than SF but because the streets are clean and property crime is much much lower it feels far safer than SF. Also, to be honest, for people reading hacker news, homicides are an incredibly rare black swan event, unlike property crime which you experience almost daily in SF. So, it makes sense for this crowd to have a place higher utility on low property crime than on low homicides. And I'm not judging, I moved to Miami and couldn't be happier with that decision.
It also matters a lot how the parties in the homicide are related, no? If it is people not knowing each other it is much more scary (and worse I would argue) than if it is something like iside circles of organized crime.
Exactly. I suspect (without much evidence) that most murders in Miami are gang related, so even less likely to affect HN readers whereas in SF it feels more random.
Dunno if that's true - the murders that happen in SoBe during Black Beach Week aren't usually gang related, it's usually some drunk idiot with a gun and a fancy rental car trying to flex or show off, and someone willing to take the bait. Sad, but that's the reality.
The murders that happen in my part of town are usually drug-related, like an OD or, in the case of my neighbor, a drunk and jealous girlfriend with access to a firearm.
Also a Miami resident (of 7 years), I lived in Oakland in 2014 and spent a lot of time in SF.
Parts of Miami are definitely cleaner, and some parts of Miami are pretty bad too, if not worse (parts of Wynwood, particularly south of the Wynwood Arcade used to be filled with homeless tents; and that's to say nothing of Liberty City, Little Haiti, etc.. ). However, Miami looks nicer but in many aspects there's some real trash beyond the facade. My building is under 5 years old, in a great (and growing) part of town, yet has had multiple murders in it. I used to live at Icon Bay, which had a literal drug lord living in one of the penthouses until there was a large-scale raid that forced him out. The FBI literally has a unit in my complex because they are here all the time - drug rings, prostitution rings, kidnapping, etc... are all happening right under your nose, but since the perps drive a Benz and walk around in a $250 pair of sneakers, it's less in-your-face (and more socially accepted) than some homeless dude in the Tenderloin shooting up heroin and taking a shit on the sidewalk. One guy in my elevator line was moving weed by the pound on a regular basis like it was nothing, and I had no idea until the property manager pointed out that they had recently been arrested on felony drug charges. Another in my building wears an ankle monitor yet owns a fleet of exotic cars. It's so much harder to tell here than anywhere else I've lived....until you know what to look for.
And that's to say nothing of the outrageous amount of scams here, particularly medicare/medicaid fraud. I'd take the homeless guy who shits on the sidewalk any day over the guy who stole millions from medicare and drives around in a Ferrari.
At least in SF/Bay Area, you can tell who the trashy folks are, and who the mentally ill people are. In Florida, they are allowed to scam the government, drive around in flashy cars, and better yet - they can buy guns and carry them around, loaded, without a permit.
This is 100% consistent with my experience in Miami.
But, personally, I'd rather have the medicare-fraud-guy than the shits-on-the-street guy in my neighborhood. The former hurts me a little no matter where they live, the latter hurts me a lot but only if they are nearby.
Conflating Elo ranking with goodness is shockingly dimwitted - I'd think it much below Hacker News commentators, but apparently that's not the case. Of course Hitler would have a high Elo ranking; he's objectively one of the most powerful and influential humans of all time.