Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluescrn | Hacker News Reader

If you use 'serious software' (Adobe, Autodesk, Unity, etc) the bill can add up fairly quickly. But that's for professionals and serious hobbyists, and that's powerful software that offers a lot of value to serious users.

And any tech hobbyist can quickly end up with a number of smaller subscriptions (e.g. hosting, backups, AV, password management)

But I've not yet found any mobile-only 'apps' that can justify the usually-overpriced subscriptions.

The upside is that I don't spend too many hours on mobile devices, as so many games/apps have such obnoxious monetisation (see Diablo Immortal, or any 'hypercasual' game with more real-money-gambling ads than actual gameplay), and the 'mobile web' isn't as good as it should be (endless app nags, poor ad-blocking compared to a real computer)

View on HN

Have you tried Brave browser for Android? Its ad-blocking works extremely well for me.

Or you could download a system-level adblocker and swerve the whole cryptocurrency/BAT thing altogether. There's a lot better solutions for fighting ads than downloading $SOME_GUY's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme.

> $SOME_GUY's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme.

You mean the creator of JavaScript and Mozilla co-founder?

There's something like a reverse ad hominem I don't have a term for.

"Person made x, so why would you doubt them on y?"

Lots of people latch on to high school achievements as their life passes them by until they realize they haven't done much in a long time and have a mid-life crisis. Some people buy an expensive car. Others start a Chrome fork and crypto scheme.

I'm not saying you shouldn't doubt them, I'm not sure where you got that from. The point is that this is not just "some random person" fork's, it's by someone who has established himself in the industry, so like it or not there IS a reputation behind this brand and piece of (open source) software. If the browser is good or not that's another discussion (which I'm happy to have), but the comment I was answering simply dismissed the idea of using the fork because it's by some random person, and so I pointed out that's not really fair.

What about if someone made a good X, then tried to make another good X? Is that still a midlife crisis

It's called "appeal to authority", and it's a fallacy only in case where the authority is not relevant to the area in question. So, if a Nobel prize winner in literature gives advice on economics or quantum physicists or medicine, then their credentials are irrelevant, and appeal to their authority is a fallacy. If, however, a prominent physicist talks about physics, then it doesn't mean they are necessarily right, but at least the likelihood of them being right is much higher than for a random person from the street. As such, having created successful technical products in the past suggests that it's likely next product may be worth something too. It's not a guarantee, but it's a relevant data point.

> haven't done much in a long time

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

> All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

I think you're giving him too much credit. This is the guy who cursed us with JavaScript and set back Web development by a solid decade, then went on to say "fuck you" to same-sex marriage before getting fired from his newly-attained CEO chair of Mozilla. His contributions to the world at large are more akin to the French: he added a lot of fancy, useless things to the world and then cowered and backpedaled when he was questioned for his beliefs.

> a reverse ad hominem

I think we call this an argument from Ethos. i.e. it leans on what someone is, rather than their persuasiveness (pathos) or how well their argumentation is structured (logos). It is not a particularly strong way to make a case, but it is a way to make a case. If you have a problem with it, you are free to speak of what you feel should be considered instead. I personally think "it's a cryptocurrency and therefore a scam" argumentation is lazy and not very compelling, but perhaps your target audience does not.

Yes, the creator of JavaScript and Mozilla co-founder's Chromium fork/pet ponzi scheme. A literal someguy.

I'm not even a terribly serious hoobyist but I still pay for Adobe's photography (Lightroom + Photoshop) plan. I still haven't had much luck finding another option that works well for organising a photo library.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com