Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Willish42's commentslogin

> Apparently one of the other linked posts shows how you can also gain RCE

Yep, here it is: https://kibty.town/blog/mintlify/

Also linked in his guide (which I missed) and [here in a separate HN post](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46317546). I think this other author's post is a lot more detailed and arguably more useful to folks reading on HN.


> Communicating with Voyager 1 is slow. Commands now take about a day to arrive, with another day for confirmation.

I found this a bit silly given the headline: "well duh, that's the theoretical limit barring fancy quantum entaglement nonsense or similar!"

TIL all electromagnetic waves, including radio which Voyager 1 [uses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1#Communication_system), travel at the speed of light. For some reason I always thought we had satellites doing some slower process or needing to somehow "see" light photons coming back from the probe to achieve near-lightspeed communication.


There's some thoughtful comments here already, but I wonder the same thing constantly as a fairly addicted user of YouTube who wants to avoid short form video altogether.

I think Premium users tend to be the most affluent desirable group for ad targeting (similar to iOS users on other platforms) and even though YT Premium lets you avoid ads on YouTube, I suspect one's activity feed/"algorithm" on YouTube factors a lot into Google (and others'?) ad targeting. The same eerily effective feedback loop for getting TikTok and YouTube suggestions works better with short-form video, so even if users aren't seeing ads, YouTube still has an incentive to have people use it. So, there's money to be made in dialing in your "algorithm" from using YT Shorts even if you're a premium user.

I'm sure the other stuff about KPIs for increasing usage of shorts to compete with other media sites is accurate too


I think you're advocating for better mental health care and rehabilitation of addicts, which I agree with. However, the idea that addicts will destroy their lives regardless of whether they stop using, or are forced to stop using, their drug of choice is an extremely dangerous statement. Many addicts get better by changing their environment and quitting/going to rehab/etc.

Furthermore, heroin != vodka in terms of how addictive it is for the average user, and that's partly why only one of them is legal for recreational use.

Controversies about decriminalization aside, harm reduction exists as a studied component in addiction, public health, and psychology circles for a reason.


Alcohol destroys many, many more lives than heroin. Isn’t even close.


The important question isn't raw numbers, it's which destroys a greater percentage of lives out of those who consume it. If heroin were as widespread as alcohol, would it still be true that alcohol destroys more lives? We obviously can't know for sure without trying it, but preliminary results aren't promising.


For all of the naysayers in the comments, I think the author has hit on a palpable societal trend, at least in the US.

My leading theory is that the pandemic supercharged a lot of folks' individualist tendencies and/or nihilism, and we're seeing the decline in real time. To claim that the author is simply missing the incentives, bureaucracy, or other structural mechanisms behind enshittification, is missing the point, and they even allude to these towards the bottom of TFA!

Poking holes in the examples is similarly missing the point, but I know we love correcting people on the internet. Cunningham's law and all that...


Thanks for throwing in references like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_forest_hypothesis even though this was a silly response to the science fiction implications.

I found it an interesting read and hadn't heard the term before, but it's exactly the kind of nerdy serendipity I come to this site for!


> Perhaps we need a corporate structure between a non-profit and a for-profit

Maybe a co-op (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative)? There are also "for-profit" like businesses that are oriented around a different goal than just profits, https://good.store/pages/good-store-about-us comes to mind.


Notepad++ was a life saver in my early days of needing to open and edit large files without having the tech literacy or familiarity required to use an actual IDE. I was a Windows "tinkerer" for a long time before learning programming and getting into engineering, and I suspect I'm not the only one on HN who got started that way. It's probably the first editor I used with line numbers, tabs / multiple view panes in one window, and customization options.

I can't say I use it as often these days, but it's still installed on my PC at home and it's a reliable tool that I think back on fondly. Without it, I might not have "leveled up" to more advanced tools later on.


For anybody who's wondering, Nintendo doesn't _actually_ own Pokemon (a common misconception), but has a major stake in "The Pokemon Company", which does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo#Subsidiaries

As such, I wonder if this structure makes it harder to sue over IP infringement. I agree with others here that patent infringement is a seemingly odd pick, but perhaps this also has to do with character design patents, since Palworld didn't explicitly use Nintendo's IP?

Should be interesting regardless to see what happens


That is a fun fact! Doubly so, because according to Wikipedia, Pokemon is the highest grossing media franchise on the planet, with some estimated $98.8 billion in revenue. Second place is "Micky Mouse & Friends" at a measly $61.4 billion.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media...


(+$45.4B for Disney princess)


Which is a completely different series, and thus non-cumulative.


If you want a whole video about this, "Who Exactly Controls Pokémon, Anyway?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfSKAvbAUUk


Couldn't Nintendo's lawyers be suing on behalf of the Pokemon stakeholder?


That's a pretty grim outlook, but I honestly can't poke a "hole" in its logic.

Well stated, somebody's clearly done their reading on Marxist theory :)

I've been struggling recently with limitations on "managing upward" I've seen thus far in my career -- eventually incentives become aligned such that no "good" manager that represents their employees well to leadership and says "no" when necessary has stuck around very long. I suspect it's largely systemic but I appreciate the way you've highlighted why.

The only cases I've seen where incentives align in favor of the rank and file employee tend to be ambitious projects as "growth" opportunities -- but of course this tends to be more often than not in the form of "experience" rather than necessarily higher "pay". Good managers still try to proactively find opportunities and make sure the team keeps growing. Eventually you "fix" the pay part by switching jobs, but I do wish we had a better system where I could just be "loyal", grow expertise in a relevant area, and be fairly compensated without having to worry about basic things like healthcare.


It’s the legal and social infrastructure we all tacitly support.

I’m not necessarily mad at anyone for that, but at a certain point it seems like we keep coming back to the same things.

And for the record, while I am read in Marx, I’m more of a Proudhon fellow, I think worth making that distinction.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: