anotherangrydev

What? I saw a bike leaning and turning. The passenger is "doing nothing" because it's just a checkered ball without animation, but that it's not how bikes normally behave (assuming a "passive passenger" as they say), it's pretty obvious that the passenger needs to be shifting its weight to achieve that.

Not at all. When you ride a (motor?)bike you still do a lot of work by yourself to keep it balanced, thing is, you become so accustomed to those things that its easy to think that they happen "by themselves" but nope.

Try turning at a relatively high speed without leaning correctly and we'll see if that wikipedia article saves you from the road rash. In these proposed vehicles you are giving control of that to some hardware that "supposedly works" and software that "supposedly works".

To each his own I guess, I wouldn't ride one of those, let alone everyday, let alone on a highway.

Wow, the C1 looks awesome but I would be really hesitant to put my life into one of those things. Thing is, if the car you're on loses power you are pretty much safe all of the time, if your bike loses power you may have some trouble but you would basically be able to stop and get off without dying. If the C1 loses power, goodbye gyro and that's the end for you. :(

If they made the same vehicle with some kind of device that solves the stability issue in a passive way I'd be totally in.

Everything's fine, everything said so far here it's fine. But I was around here when that happened, which was not that much time ago so I find it weird that you guys don't remember.

Twitter pulled some very dirty stuff on Meerkat, merely days before launching Periscope and later, in order to favour their own Meerkat clone. That's when everything changed from 'it's a free market' to 'it's our market and we can kick you out for no reason'. And yeah, it actually is Twitter's market, they are allowed to do anything they like with it and "monopoly regulations" aside, they can kick you out of their for no reason.

But let me tell you what I don't find ethical about all of this. That when you are going to develop for them, they do not tell you straight away: we are going to fuck you up if what you do turns out to be valuable; quite the contrary, they just put out their "we-are-so-cool-and-we-love-developers" face and invited everyone to be part of their platform blah blah blah.

That started around 5-6 years ago, and probably you (selectively) won't remember this either, but back then the first killer apps that Twitter had were third-party Twitter clients that made the whole user experience better. They were a hit because back then, too, the main Twitter UX was a piece of s... and these alternatives were so much better. And guess what happened to those products? Twitter pulled the same shit on them, they bought TweetDeck which was arguably the one with the most users (or the one that needed the money the most), and banned all other clients from their API with a week-or-so notice. At that time, that thing was even worse, because I would even dare to say that Twitter somehow was in debt with those developers because a significant contribution to the growth of twitter was driven by people going through all these third-party clients, that's plain treachery and there's even a special circle in Hell for that thing.

Now history repeats again and will repeat forever because the message from Twitter in that sense is very clear: we don't give a shit about our developers.

But now, it's good to see that things are finally turning around. Twitter desperately needs a killer app right now, because they've lost the hype, they're running out of money and investors don't eat anymore that "we will be profitable in ten years" crap. The only one way that Twitter could be hip again is, oooooh the irony, if another great product starts driving people back into using Twitter, but guess what? No developer will ever take Twitter seriously anymore, and that's just and sweet beautiful karma :)

Btw, it would be honest for you to disclaim about your relationship with Twitter :^)

Twitter ripped off Meerkat. That's all I will ever see to this story. I don't care how succesfully they may be or become.

Disclaimer: I don't work for Meerkat. It's just the way it is. Twitter deserves every bad bit of luck they are getting lately.

>it's not that hard to arrange proper redundancies in your systems

If it really were like 'apt-get install redundancy' I'm pretty sure that AWS would have 1/10th the clients it has now.

Not like in "I had a surge in traffic of millions of visitors"

But yes like in "Some hardware failed, but yeah that's not my problem anymore!"

Do you think they have a special deal w/ Amazon? Otherwise I imagine that's a really expensive bill.

Do you think they're doing it because its cheaper when you account for things at a larger scale? Like, reduced liabilities, payrolls, CapEx, whatever? Or is it more expensive but still "easier" and they go with it?

I really REALLY would like to hear everything from everyone about this, because right now I'm facing that decision for my company. I'm not as big as Netflix obv, but it is a big deal for me. It is really attractive to have all the scale you need at will and forget about maintenance at all; even if it is more expensive I would gladly pay as much as double my operating costs if I can rest easily at night. I would even eat as much as 10%-20% of my profits if I don't have to deal with that.

But the devil is in the details, I think is relatively easier to go full-cloud than to later find out it was a mistake and try to migrate back to your private premises. So, what could be the downsides of going full-cloud just as Netflix did? Also, taking into account that I'm not a personal friend of Bezos neither another Netflix, I would be just another smallish guy and I'm pretty sure that won't get me all the perks that come with the former.

This is honestly one of the few really good and creative ideas I've seen here in a VERY long time.

I really don't mind sharing an audio hash with someone that already has my full banking information/history in there. Not only that, I would be EAGER to do it if that will increase the security of the current contract that I have with them, specially since they found a way to do it that it's not bothersome at all.

But yeah, whatever you say naggy HNers.

Well... that third-party already something valuable of you. Your email, bank account, whatever is behind that auth.

So, do you trust a third party having that information of you?

I'm reading that one, thanks.

I really dont know the PageRank algorithm, but I was really impressed by their results, a trillion of "something" in 3 minutes. I thought that just reading things should take you a lot more than that but apparently not.

Really nice stuff.

Their test machines have 16-cores. They're running 2.9Gops/core. Plausible, yeah. I'm not used to see real things achieve almost 100% efficiency, sounds really good.

>we were able to execute PageRank on over a trillion social connections in less than 3 minutes per iteration with only 200 machines

Colour me skeptical, that's around 28M edges per second per machine.

Step 2: Do not get paid like in the US.

>invest at 10% (you get to work out where)

That's the line where everything fell apart.

As you do, I have a lot of programs and extensions installed on my machine. How about you install them all on yours? Come on! Don't be grim! They are fucking awesome and if you don't use them it's not like it is the end of the world :^)

Twitter is a hot potato. I don't see any potential buyers.

tar --version

This is stackoverflow.

"I want to draw a square in an HTML Canvas"

"Why?" "Why not use python?" "Circles are better than squares, just saying" "It is not possible to draw a square usign that language, it was not designed to do that" "It depends on what type of screen you're using" "Are you sure you want to draw a square in the screen?" "How do you define a square?" --> "10 Downvotes, closed as not constructive"

And later, but only if you're lucky:

"c.getContext("2d").rect(20,20,150,100).stroke();"

Is this a corner-case of their shipping algorithms? Is this the kind of problem that supposedly get you millions of dollars if you manage to solve it?

If you owe debt and you are burning through your cash and there is no sign of turning the situation over in the near future, then you are "drowning in debt", IMO, or you will be in a very short time. But that's just me and my "potentially illegal" point of view.

I haven't take a look at their last quarter report but I don't think their situation changed from:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-debt-rated-as-junk-14159...

to a healthy one in less than a year.

Can you please provide a link to the balance sheet you saw?

Yeah, but it took them many years and massive leverage to achieve that. Also, revenue != profit. As of today, they are drowning in debt, there doesn't seem to be a strategy for turning things around and now investors don't even believe in them.

Twitter's going down :(

I see Google a little adrift in many of their new ventures, from Google+ to date. But, however, they maintain a pretty solid strategy in the fundamental products that generate most of it revenue, which is pretty much the ad market.

I think that the urge to diversify their money, coupled with, "well, we have a lot of money" is causing Google to invest in many things that eventually turn to dead-ends. That makes Google seem a little adrift, from my perspective, but nothing that would put their business at risk.

I really wish I had enough karma to downvote this opinion. It just reeks of ignorance and short-sightedness.

Polyvore is far from a "fashion startup". It has a very substantial user base and their whole proposal allows for very natural (and kinda cool) monetization strategies. Also, we don't know how much Yahoo paid for it, it could've been a real bargain; apparently around 60M, kind of cheap if you consider they've been pulling profit from years now.

You want examples of real companies that seem to be adrift? Try looking at Twitter. Or Google (although they have some real good products that keep the ship floating).

It really is not that much of a big deal, IMO. And I'm really not a Window fanboy.

To add another example, I normally do JS using Node and there (and also in IE) you have a very useful function: setImmediate.

A few days ago, when doing some client-side JS I wanted to use it and I saw that it is not part of a standard, not only that, it has actually been REJECTED. It's really sad to see the development of the language crippled for a reason that basically boils down to "No, because it was proposed by Microsoft".

>Please don't quote unless it's an actual quote. - bpodgursky

>Microsoft still essentially owns the desktop with Windows

So what? That doesn't mean they are obliged to comply with whatever you think is "the right thing"®.

I'm gonna highlight another another big difference that you seemed to overlook.

Microsoft is a company, their mission is to generate profits for their shareholders and they are the owners of Windows 10, because they developed it. Mozilla is a non-profit corporation whose main product, Firefox, is software that has been developed and tested (to a big extent) by people who do not get paid a single cent, because they have faith in the project and the overall mission that Mozilla attempts to portrait.

Now, I really want to understand your side, please explain, how come what Microsoft did with Windows was wrong but what Mozilla did with Firefox was ok?

Edit: Downvotes, but no arguments, as expected.

>What is your exit strategy?

>Acquisition by Google.