bargl

>let’s not pretend this family didn’t violate the law here either.

No actually, let's do pretend this family didn't violate the law here. Let's assume that allegedly means just that. We have this crazy double standard in the US, we want to assume the police are incompetent, but then when they accuse someone we assume they are guilty.

How about we assume this is a competent accusation that may or may not be factual, and leave it to the courts to decide. Whether or not we believe the court system needs reform to make it more affordable/just is a valid point, but let's assume that by reading the Cliff's Notes (press release) of this case we don't know enough to decide guilt.

Edit: Courts should be affordable and just for all. I believe paying more shouldn't get you special treatment and not being able to pay shouldn't get you harsher judgements. The difficulty is in finding that balance.

Edit 2: Well shit I was wrong, I missed the part where they agreed to the charges? Not sure how that works, beyond my limited knowledge on the law, but.... it looks like they plead guilty.

1000% Agree with everything said here.

Microsoft makes is stupid easy to use Azure, but that doesn't preclude how easy it is to use other hosting. It's like, you can have an iPhone and a windows laptop, but it doesn't integrate AS well as iPhone and a Mac.

I've worked at a startup that did this.

I don't know if this was the program we used, but you can get a LOT of free stuff from Microsoft as a startup. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/overview/startups/

>Between Python and .NET ecosystems, I'm more familiar with the former and, under equal conditions, would choose it over .NET.

I think one thing you need to do when creating a startup is, go with what you know (as you said). You want to decrease the risk that you're product is going to be blocked by encountering an edge case in a framework/language you don't know and you get stuck there for a long time. I am way more familiar with .NET than Python, but I use Python in my spare time and on side projects to build up those muscles.

If you're doing a startup and you want to go .NET, I don't think there's anything holding you back anymore. It's open source now, runs on Linux, and you don't have to pay a dime to develop with it. Microsoft will get you in that, it's WAY easier to pay a little bit to get Visual Studio Enterprise and to then hook that into Azure and all of a sudden you're paying them a ton of money. Yes, that's their master plan. But, no one is making you do that.

Where to stay away from .NET core: Lambdas. The startup time for Lambdas just isn't where it is for other languages, when I last looked at this. If someone has newer data to prove me wrong I'll freaking LOVE YOU FOREVER!

Anyway, depending on what and how you're building your startup, .NET maybe a great pick for you depending on your background. I wouldn't force myself to pick up a new ecosystem and do a startup if I was focused on delivering a product I wanted to deliver and not learning something new and cool.

I knew of this happening, but I wasn't sure to what extent it did not know it was that drastic.

I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then. Life was in general a 20 year term. Average life span in 1800 of 50 years. Today it's 78.6.

https://clickamericana.com/topics/health-medicine/us-life-ex... https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/what-life-expec...

Those probably aren't the best places for me to get numbers, but I think they're good enough for a rough example of what I mean.

I for one, hope to all hell, this doesn't happen. It would make the supreme court just an extension of any party in power of presidency and senate.

This is also, not to say I want freaking TRUMP to appoint the next justice. I just don't want to see it become a game of who's got the most votes.

I was very opposed to Obama losing his appointment.

I just don't want the precedent of 9 to change.

I've seen people who follow this line, and I respect it. It's when it bleeds over into the followers of those politicians that I get frustrated.

The fact that we're so fast to assign these values to people we don't know on the internet makes me sad at times. I get it, it's just how people are.

You bring up a good example, but I'd probably be in the category of believing guns are good for a democratic society (or at least so deeply entrenched that they can't get pulled out at this point). However, I also believe in some pretty strong gun controls and requirements for a more modern society. I'm not foolish enough to believe that people with guns could win a civil war in the day of modern weapons, I also don't think it's the most important civil liberty to protect for a free society. But it's a political pressure that can do some good, and there are very few practical means of getting rid of it, and I'd rather we focus on global warming while making reasonable changes to gun laws to minimize deaths where we can.

Every reader of this paragraph will have a different reaction to my personal level of hypocrisy when I send thoughts and take a moment of silence for the victims of any shooting. It's subjective, but without that context I assume a lot more would find my thoughts and prayers objectionable. I get your stance, there's a lot of the never my guns people on the internet, and a lot among politicians.

I've just personally been pushed by tribalism to not be able to talk to many people on the internet over my personal beliefs and share ideas. I enjoy the other side of every argument, but when people get attacked for their ideas they tend to shutdown and look for others who agree more.

I hate that it's become bad to send people your thoughts and prayers. It may not do anything, but to have meant so much to so many people is something worth thinking about.

I have a rule with everyone who could have an emergency, 3 calls in a row.

I know it can be burdensome, but I don't answer in an emergency but if I ever see I missed 3 calls then I know it was an emergency.

>But the examples you gave don't really meet that objectively bad definition.

I'm not trying to write a dictionary definition. You are correct that my way of phrasing this definition is really objectively bad. What is a non-celebrity, how do we quantify this? If you google people who lost their jobs for facebook posts etc you'll find some example.

The ones that concern me more are the people who flashed across your screen, an image, a video, some "Karen" who did something on social media or someone video'd them and their company saw it, then they got fired. The context doesn't get picked up by the news so there really is no story other than a post by someone who was picked up and a life that was ruined.

>This is sort of why the sky is falling concerns about cancellation don't resonate with me. The definition you picked is, I'd argue one that frames cancellation as an objectively unfair thing. And one that is concerning even when it ultimately makes the right choice.

Fairness, is for courts and groups of people who have time and inclination to look at context to determine. My issue with cancellations I've seen is if you get a post blown up (even moderately so) and you lose your job, no one knows or cares.

This is not a sky is falling issue, but it is a new issue that's come up in the modern internet era and Laws lag behind this sort of thing. You should not be able to be fired for being pro-Insert your politician here-. Even annoyingly so. That should not affect where you work, I believe that right now that freedom is at risk on both sides in the US. Is it a top 10 political risk on my whiteboard? No, I don't have a board. But it's an issue, and we can agree to disagree that it even is an issue. You won't get any argument that I made a good definition.

Yeah I'd really love to see an analysis on this, that'd be really interesting to me.

I see a ton of people making what I'd consider a pretty false assumption that the probability of any scientific american reader is pro trump is zero.

The link below is a pretty awesome, counter intuitive use case of Bayes Therom that I saw which made me question statements like this. What the actual makeup of Scientific American's reader base is is probably lower than 50% but it isn't 0% either. That's a lot of wriggler room for me to be technically assertion that yeah, they probably didn't lose half of their reader base. But is it possible they lost 1/3, 1/5, 1/10? Those all affect the bottom line of a company like this in much different ways. I'd assume that the leaders made an educated decision, and weighed their pros/cons.

Also, just because you voted for Trump doesn't mean you'd unsubscribe to SA just because they endorsed the other candidate. What I'd like to read is some analysis that SA did on their readership base to determine how many people they'd lose based on this decision and then the results of their experiment. I mean what better way for a scientific journal to make a decision like this than to also follow their hypothesis up with some analysis.

I have nothing meaningful to contribute to whether or not they should/shouldn't have endorsed Biden, so I'll just say, it is not a zero consequence decision.

https://paulvanderlaken.com/2020/01/21/bayes-theorem-probabi...

>I think the issue may be that you're defining cancel culture in a way that's very different than what most people in general, and in this thread, do. That's not wholly your fault, but it does mean that the conversation probably won't be fruitful.

Just to be clear, I'm using a definition that I did not come up with on my own. Cancel culture doesn't have one definition. I linked a video where T1J kinda covers this. He's not a definitive source, but at least two people are confused by this definition.

Examples => I've got to google it. The best example I can think of was the lady who got on the flight and when she landed she didn't have a job. Her tweet was taken out of context, and while made in poor taste still.... kinda lame.

Other examples would be the google memo guy (kind of a reverse order firing iirc), the maga hat kid, the lady from brookfield zoo, and the manager at Chipotle off the top of my head.

Google some examples of this. Should you post stupid things to Facebook/Twitter? No you shouldn't. Should you get fired for it? I'd lean to the no side more than most people I'd guess. I think free speech is important, but companies have the right to fire people.

Is it the end of the world? In most mild cases, not so much. But there are some more extreme cases where there are much more long lasting effects to people. We don't typically hear about it unless the cancellation is something that was taken out of context and some people feel bad for the person being canceled. A lot of times it's just someone getting fired.

OK I said I wasn't going to lurk, but I have a problem.

Blacklisting isn't cancel culture, I don't understand how it equates at all. I think, we're talking past each-other a bit here just because cancel culture can be hard to define. It's defined by some as boycotting like "cancel Netflix". It'd defined by others as canceling an individual like "this person tweeted about XYZ when they were 17 fire them." It can also be, "Celebrity XYZ said something I disagree with cancel them (Kapernick comes to mind)." One is targeted against the less privileged and elevates those without a voice or a platform to celebrity. The other is just a re-branding of boycotting. The third targets celebrities who making a social stand.

I'd define the cancel culture I'm concerned about as the form that is against an individual who was not previously famous, doesn't want to be famous and is thrust into the spotlight without the ability to control the narrative or provide context. They got caught on a bad day and just want to be left alone. This is a form of "witch hunt" that thrives on the mob mentality of twitter and other social networks out there that feed on our baser human instincts.

I also think that canceling celebrities because you disagree with them is dumb, but that's privilege vs less privilege and I don't see it as big of an issue.

Cancel culture that's really just boycotting is not something I'm concerned about.

I'll re-iterate, the past had some awful and yet socially acceptable shit going on. I don't think there is a similar phenomenon where the mob went after other individuals in such a global manner. The level of cancel culture that I'm talking about wasn't a global phenomenon before. It wasn't more local, mobs stayed in towns and cities. But they also carried pitch forks and hurt people. So before we had, potential death in your city/town, and now we have humiliation and loss of job but globally. I dislike them both and if I had to pick I think the later is the obvious choice.

OK really trying to close this down now, but this conversation is more fun than what I'd be doing othewise!

There is no one definition of cancel culture. Many people don't know what they even mean when they talk about it.

If we break cancel culture up into roughly before the internet and after. Being canceled (I'd call a non-violent black-sheep status) was a local phenomenon, it was in your town, your church, or your local group. You could move away to reclaim anonymity.

Today, you can't hide from it, but it's as you said, a quick burst. But I think you're forgetting that these ramifications aren't just about you being hated by the internet, they can follow you by alienating friends/family. They have made people lose jobs. They take a person's worst moment and give it permanence in a way that wasn't possible in the past.

I'd probably say that cancel culture requires the internet to really be a thing, because now we can take anyone who's worst moment is caught on video and have it follow them around forever. Sure the internet as a whole might not hate you for more than a week or so, but the ramifications of unwanted massive celebrity must be profound.

To be clear, I'd consider cancellations to be people who are not famous and don't want to be famous. Even that level of positive reception by half of a socially powerful group might be unwanted, especially if you don't really align with them.

I'll finish with this, cancel culture is a minor problem compared to those of our ancestors. But it's still something we as a society can try to work on. As individuals when we see someone being canceled, don't dog pile on them, look for context and dig deeper. Sometimes it will make you more angry there are people you're not going to like out there.

Side story: When I was a kid I had a bully for all of 1 year in elementary school, he'd trip me at recess every day. One day I lost it and punched him in the face. I remember this clearly, he waited a few weeks then tripped me one more time. For most of us that'd be the end of the story, but a few years later, a family friend of mine brought him by our house and I had to play with him for an afternoon. We got to talking and playing. Just two kids playing as if we didn't know each other. I found out he had dealt with some shit I never had to, and it showed me that his behavior wasn't all his own. I don't regret punching him, I don't begrudge him being a bully for a year, but I do thank that family friend for giving me an afternoon of seeing more context. It showed me that, I don't have to like everyone, and I don't have to let people walk on me, but I do have to do my best to understand people even when I don't like them.

Sorry maybe that's not relevant, but I think about the kid that I was getting thrust onto the internet for punching someone, no context, no background and I'd probably not have learned from it.

Edit: context around the link. Just a really good video I watched from a person I like on this topic. Sometimes I'll haunt my threads to reply to people but I don't really feel like it tonight, so have a good night everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p26JJxvw4lM

Very cool.

Are you still running this service? It appears from the site to still be running. I had a similar idea to this a while ago and I'm glad to see someone built it.

This, one thing I've heard about Michael Jordan wasn't just that he was amazing at the game himself, but that he was inspirational to his entire team. He pushed them to do better because he pushed himself to do better.

Hey do you have a temporal DB backing all of these queries? I was reading through and it looks like you might have some sort of Bi-Temporal DB backing your queries based on some of the samples I saw.

Sometimes the name can be really hard to find because it's just so common in other places. You can get around that the way Google did with go. They called it golang. So any search has to search golang not go.

It's really hard to find, how to write a loop in go. But how to write a loop in golang is easier. Maybe you can be modulo learning or something. But make sure you have a catch phrase people use to discuss your app that makes it easier to find in Google. Exposure and time might fix that but you want the way people think of your tool to be the way they search it.

I'm no expert on this stuff, this advice might suck, that's my I am not a lawyer disclaimer. Good luck!!!

I just wanted to say, I had a hard time googling your product. It was easier with DDG. The name made me have to dig deeper with keyword searches.

This looks like a cool service though and I'll be taking a deeper look TY.

Why not? He doesn't have to reach everyone, just some portion of the population that's profitable.

My argument should have been this is only (imo) going to get at most 10% of the worlds population.

That's based on the signal interference in space. Scale gets costly.

EDIT: Then I'm done replying for real. This thread has been fun but I need to stop myself at some point. Thanks for replying.

physics => Co-channel and adjacent satellite interference to be specific, the closer you put your satellites the more signal they have to handle. These things are built to scale for the worlds population and you can't just add more satellites without scaling the whole constellation. If it was built to scale for NY city then they'd need to support that population density on every single satellite. But if they build it for Wyoming and steal those customers then they need to only scale for that and allow ISPs to keep NY city residents.

While it's cheaper for cable companies to lay wire close to hubs, it's cheaper for satellites to hit people the more spread out they are. So the physics of this constellation are such that it's cheaper for them to give more rural people a baseline of internet rather than upsetting ISPs. I think that's wishful thinking by many people who hate ISPs.

I'm not saying it's cheaper for cables to hit everyone everywhere in the world, or this system wouldn't exist. As I said earlier, it's meant to supplement a weakness in our current infrastructure by blanketing the world with cheap internet that works at lower population densities.

I used this metric in another thread, but if you're on Septic Starlink is probably for you. If you're on sewer then you're already surrounded by a density of infrastructure that probably makes ground based communication cheaper. No I'm not going to bet that someone on HN doesn't have a counter example for me, but overall I think this would probably make sense.

This type of constellation won't be able to do it.

They are planning on picking off the users who cable has to run the furthest to off of the ISPs not the close users. If we started spreading out evenly I could see this, but while we've got the population density we do, I don't see this happening.

Each house will interfere with it's neighbor, the more they spread the easier it is.

>The constellation today is not ready for high density usage , it is not that it will never be ready .

I am no sith, I shouldn't speak in absolutes. But, I'd bet that this technology won't disrupt ISPs within 50 miles of a city. I hope it would, but I don't see that happening.

Let me be super clear about what I meant in my first comment.

Satellites are VERY susceptible to overcrowding, this is what I mean by physics. Co-Channel interference and Adjacent Satellite Inteference play a big role. The more signal you use the more of a problem it becomes.

Think about it like this. Your car radio, has how many available stations? Have you ever gotten multiple signals at the same time? This is all a really big problem for space based communication you just can't solve with more signal.

Don't get me wrong we can do a lot with our spectrum, but there is a limited amount and if we both want to communicate with a satellite and we live 100 feet apart, our signals will interfere much more than if we live 1000 feet apart.

I'm not saying stringing cables is cheaper, I'm saying laying fiber from hub to hub and then connecting to those hubs is cheaper if you're within 50 mile radius. Maybe cellular is cheaper, maybe a wire to your house is cheaper. It depends on how many people you have close to you.

There just isn't enough spectrum for everyone.

The bandwidth here is 100K per state not 2 counties. That's my issue with your calculations, we're probably somewhere in the middle. They might stop servicing people outside of town. I'd probably use the metric, if you're on septic you're probably better served by SpaceX than Comcast. If you're on sewer then Comcast will probably be better (no not always, I'm no sith).

We'll have to agree to disagree. Honestly, I hope you're correct and I'm wrong. I think ground based infrastructure is still going to be much cheaper at medium to high population densities. You don't agree with me, but I learned a lot in this back and forth. Thanks.

SpaceX can't scale regionally, they have to scale globally. The nature of their satellites is that if they want to accommodate 2x as many users in a city they have to double their capacity.

The push I'm discussing is the cost to get a baseline internet out there for 10k people per 100 miles.

I'm assuming the cost per last mile is higher in rural areas than in urban areas. If that's true right now the majority of our population is in cities so SpaceX will have trouble reaching them.

That's the core of my point. For Starlink to hit everyone in a city they'd have a huge amount of wasted capacity in rural areas.

Satellites also degrade naturally over time. They have a set lifetime and don't all last that long. Cables under the ground tend to last longer even if they require spot fixes. I'm assuming that bandwidth wise, the cables are more efficient at least until getting manufactured equipment to space becomes even more cheaper.

>last mile work is expensive.

What do you mean there?

Sorry, My experience is mostly US based. I looked into this heavily in my area 2+ years ago.

T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon say their hotspots are not meant for this in my region. At least that was 2 years ago in Sub-urban Seattle and 3 years ago D.C.

>... I am not sure there is obviously a better choice here, if the launch costs no longer dominate.

I'm basing my entire comment on existing costs due to SpaceX efficiency. We'd need (IMO) more cost reduction.