daniel_levine

my assumption would be private APIs he's figuring out by MITM'ing mobile network traffic

It looks a lot like R's standard lib, but can't be positive. Pinged Adrian to chime in

Sentry does not offer that product natively, but they do have an integration with SessionStack to do it https://blog.sentry.io/2017/09/20/see-errors-through-users-e...

There's now http://ksonnet.heptio.com to make it much easier to get started with k8s and eliminate the need to write YAML

Ping me. I know some folks who would probably consider buying the product without forcing you to keep working on it. It's more common than you might think.

Excited to be working with Mux. I've known the team for nearly six years and from Zencoder to Video.js to Mux I'm continually blown away by their ability to build great technology and be great people.

Big fan of yours and do think Amazon does a ton for customers, but that's not quite accurate. I'm also a huge fan of Amazon so this comment isn't meant to be negative, but more admiring.

It's not that Amazon is giving its money to customers. Bezos is very cleverly taking advantage of a loophole in how taxes/accounting works. Over long periods of time, cash flow and income will generally converge. But in the short term, they don't have to. Bezos runs the business around cash flow while minimizing income. Corporate taxes are based on income. The reason for that is because the tax code wants to make sure a business actually has the cash to pay taxes, before owing them. Straightforward enough.

As Bezos bluntly states publicly, he focuses on free cash flow. That number is going through the roof, and while portions of it go into lower prices, a lot more of it goes into investments in new products/infrastructure that will further grow cash flow while effectively deferring net income. That balance is extremely difficult to manage, and Bezos is probably the best the world has ever seen. All that said, it's not quite right to say that they're donating profits to consumers.

Just to be clear for everyone who doesn't click through. The car was one (and seemingly a very small one) amongst many reasons people ate horses, coupled with varying economic recessions, shortages of other meat, and changing consumer taste.

Per non-adjusted output manufacturing employs fewer than Farming, and farming employs fewer people than hunting and gathering. I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I just think this a turtles all the way down situation.

"Reliable cars" have built in positives for the consumers productivity (they're reliable).

Yes, the majority of economists have considered that and it's why they love automation so much! As costs to produce goods come down, competition (in a competitive market) forces the end price down. Then the end consumer saves money! In your example if the costs hit zero while the consumers still have money then it's a complete miracle!

For a capitalist, the best state of affairs is when everyone can consume her products with enough margin to beat other possible places to invest capital! If automation is adopted, it's because it gets a factory closer to that point.

Many are, but not all. And I suspect waiting jobs as ratio compared with eating out gross revenue is shrinking (though eating out is growing and is more labor intensive than a grocery store still). Part of that is labor organization, the truckers have unions. And unions were (and are) a big political issue.

Many service sector jobs are not minimum wage and not geared towards young people (any more than truck driving). They do often have utilization issues, but so do truck drivers. Generally that's probably more of an argument for those folks to organize themselves than anything else. Truck drivers certainly did (The Teamsters).

I'm speaking to not just the cars themselves, but all the jobs that are a derivative effect. As a quick example, horses were quite good on variable terrain. Whereas, we decided to dramatically increase spend on roads with the advent and popularization of the car.

Robotics production, tooling, software engineering, and the jobs associated with whole new industries that are enabled by robotic manufacturing. Also, the jobs associated with more cars being on the road and being more reliable.

I think it's fair to say that there are instances of technology causing variable effects on the labor market over time (particularly variable effects on different parts). That's not a particularly interesting result though :)

More broadly, economists overwhelmingly think that increases in productivity lead to improvements in quality of life of people over time. Either by improving their labor situation (better, safer jobs) or their consumer situation (cheaper goods, more choice etc).

The logical counterexample would be technology we wish we would not have created, of which I can come up with a few examples, but far fewer than the reverse.

why not just an increase in the earned income tax credit?

Much worse! Completely, strategically dominant replacement of human and animal muscle with the steam engine.

The Fed adding improving employment to natural zero to it's mandate post Great Recession alongside controlling inflation, seems to imply that the ideological opposition isn't that strong.

Citation on horse slaughtering in the mid-1900s that probably was relatively unrelated to the Great Depressions? Legitimately interested.

Relatively low margin, fragmented service jobs. Waiters/waitresses, fitness instructors, barbers etc. Those jobs are often still better than the jobs being automated away (truck driving), just less economic to build such specialty robots, at least in the near term.

The invention of the car has almost certainly led to more jobs, even if you were to include the jobs lost by horses. In part because there were exponentially more cars that needed manufacturing, maintenance, roads to drive on etc.

Heck, I'd be interested in seeing the ratio between total employment numbers before the advent of the car in the late 1800s and automobile-related jobs at their peak (US only).

We've already gotten pretty far along that path with nuclear weapons at the extreme, with ICBMs and air dominance not far behind. Israel is likely to show up relatively quickly on a ranking of most powerful militaries for all of those reasons.

Can't wait for Amazon Energy... Utility-scale renewable energy for all

In the instances of those acquisitions, it was purely the choice of the founders as the investors have no control over that decision.

Just made a domain switch too, https://sentry.io/ now!

I know many situation where the only control given up is basic minority shareholder rights, which you give up with a partner or employee.

And I know even more where there isn't a clock. You can always pay dividends instead of selling or going public.

Too much hyperbole. For some examples see my previous comment.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12385952

Wufoo did YC then didn't raise a Series A, before eventually selling to SurveyMonkey. Olark raised from YC, then a Seed and that's it. Statuspage did YC and then Seed and then sold to Atlassian. These are just some examples off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with a ton more.

Big fan of what you all are doing!

Huge fan of this! Increasing voter turnout is something I think everyone can get behind and has a tremendous impact!

YouTube, Android, Chrome, Maps, Apps... it's going terribly

Understood and generally agreed. That said, often when monitoring matters most is the exact moment when you least want to worry about the integrity or uptime of your monitoring.

Is there a company offering a SaaS version of Prometheus?