I really don't understand this community sometimes. If you are going to downvote a comment, why not explain why? Is there a perceived laziness? Or have I missed something???
That is largely interpreted as 'mostly refrain from talking about voting'. Keep in mind, downvoting here happens for many different reasons, it's not always negative and it is best not to take it personally or make assumptions about why it's happening. You could think of it as symmetric to upvoting & ask yourself whether you want an explanation for every upvote... maybe not? The goal is to have a high signal to noise ratio, and discussion of votes is mostly noise and almost always tangential to the article/thread.
I also didn't see the parent comment, but Terry & TempleOS have a long and complicated history here, so it might be a good idea to reserve judgement.
2x games: SuperHot and Onward. Both just totally blew my mind! Google them if you've never heard of them before. And Onward really shows the power of an Indie Dev.
I find the people that work on this stuff fascinating!!
To have that much precision (with 15 seconds left, left just stop).
I can right-click and deploy some changes to a production server or run a database script that has a massive impact on the data.
But to imagine that many movings parts (ie those workers specifically involved in the launch) and to have those parts all working together. A database change has a massive impact to "our data". When a launch goes wrong - really puts into perspective what "massive" really means...
I travel with my wife and 2 kids. I have NOTHING! And yet, I am hyper aware of how I might be perceived.
It's one thing to fight the good fight! And its another to poke the bear.
I don't agree with your "maximum laziness", perhaps the author was arrogant? Or ignorance?
I love the idea of porn on a burner phone, but even then... (Legal) porn has a very different meaning in different countries. The author is really playing with fire.
Scott Adams (Dilbert guy) suggested a few months ago a "Better Surrender Technique"[1]. Surely this could be applied to the U.S. Customs...
When I said maximum laziness, I tend to think of things in maximizing the expected value of my time.
Crossing the border with $3-4k in electronics? Say there's a 5% chance they demand passwords & access. I don't want some nosepicker TSA agent going through my stuff. Refusal to give access means I lose it.
So E(X) is $150-200 worth of my time. That means an old i5 laptop. If I need anything I can grab an SSH key off the web somewhere that lets me get another SSH key somewhere else...
Plus, you're more at risk of your stuff being stolen when traveling anyway. You shouldn't be risking all of your data getting taken away for good. Even if you comply, that doesn't mean they won't take everything away from you. That raises the potential loss significantly.
And fuck Dilbert. I bet that guy has late stage syphilis by now. He's becoming increasingly deranged and disconnected from reality. Oh, the irony.
Placing your hands outside the car window is the standard procedure for a felony police stop. This will signal to the police officer that you have been stopped for a felony driving infraction in the past or are a felon. This is dangerous advice to give anyone already afraid of being profiled by police.
With OEM Windows, everything can be expected, from bloatware "drivers" slowing down your machine by half to obligatory root certificates (thanks Lenovo! thanks DELL!) that are necessary to serve you in-browser ads. And you're not theoretically allowed to remove them or it voids you warranty. So an ad at startup doesn't surprise me, it's not really Microsoft's fault, but that's what you get with a Windows OS.
I never really understand why comments like this get downvoted.
There seems to be love for the free market. That is until the free market goes against what I want. Then the free market sucks!
What if FARK was another type of business. Say it is the corner 7-11[1]. They have been there for 18 years, and their major source of customers was the big factory next door.
Factory decides to either move / redesign / whatever, where the customers are no longer available.
The store makes a big noise - would anyone care?
[1] in this example, I mean any sort of "corner store". 20 years ago we'd call them milk bars, but now I'm showing my age...
>That is until the free market goes against what I want. Then the free market sucks!
I'm not sure anyone is saying that the free market sucks. People are saying that there is no free market in some sectors and that, in the absence of a reasonably efficient free market, the least worst alternative is regulation.
What entrepreneurs want is to play the game and win big. What consumers want is for every entrepreneur to play the game, but for no one to win big. So yes, consumers want competition - entrepreneurs not so much.
This whole thing is actually funny to look from the outside - big payoffs are essentially a carrot dangled in front of people so that they start companies and get into competition with each other, which drives innovation and lowers prices. But it's meant to be a lie - you can't deliver on the promise too much, you can't have one player actually win, because this destroys competition, and with it it destroys the benefits the whole process brings to the society.
You raise a good point, but I start to have a feeling people read my comment as a defense of Google and free markets. It's not. The opening sentence was meant sarcastically.
In a free market, if a company breaks its Terms of Service with me I have the legal right to walk up and shoot every Employee and Shareholder of that company (No limited liability in a free market -- that's a government decree.)
My job, which includes attempting to determine the facts and deliver a just decision, instead of making a reality-show-style popularity contest out of it.
Proper procedure (including appearance, notice, and other jurisdictional matters) is part of the decision.
It's ridiculous how otherwise (mostly) rational professionals are so blinded by their version of facts & the adversarial nature of litigation / hearings that they act so cluelessly.
This comment included: imagine if someone had a pitch scheduled with a VC, but sent an assistant instead. The investor would correctly pass on that and HN would flip a shit. But involve lawyers, judges and the judicial process...and expecting someone to show up to court is a "reality show popularity contest"
The claim was that he didn't fully hold up his end of the contract. This isn't a criminal case with forensics; this is small claims with a lot of he-said, she-sad.
I do agree with this and should have attended the first trial myself.
I do find myself somewhat conflicted though as to what advice to offer others in the same situation. In California small claims court, it seems that you basically can appeal a decision for any reason as the defendant. You could almost make it a practice to send an entry level person to fight the first one and if you lost, go back and appeal. The other shocking thing is that if state you will not stipulate to a pro tem hearing your case, your case will most likely be delayed again and again. You could almost just do that till the other party gives up. I have doubts that a person angry enough to sue would give up though - I did not.
As others have said. Pablo & Marco Polo. Piper Chapman from Orange is the New Black and Mike Wheeler from Stranger Things. (Won't make sense if you haven't seen the shows)
There was a load of publicity ~a decade ago about this, with lots of mobile operators pushing the service. They did do the marketing, but MMS was the success we know it was(!), cameras in phones weren't top notch, and the service was used once only by lots of people who have now forgotten all about it...
At least let me know what is / isn't appropriate