ebbv

As far as "changing the world" goes; the reality is you mostly have to be very lucky. The amount of people setting out to do world changing things vs. the ones that are successful is a staggering ratio.

Hitting 40 this year my advice to any young person is do what will make you feel happy and fulfilled. Whatever that is. It's hard to figure that out, but we only live once and the old adage "You'll regret the things you didn't do more than the things you did." is generally true.

The one sentence version is; say "Yes!" to more things.

That's not what the term "strawman" means. What you mean is it's an excuse used to oppress people, and that may be true but you'd have to give supporting cases. (Certainly it has been the case for LGBTQ people being oppressed in the past, even currently in some countries.)

Mental illness is also a real thing and a real problem, and people with serious problems who need medication often live outside the bounds of normal society. But that issue is not going to be solved here, and I think it's a distraction from the actual topic because the reality is he was on other people's property where he wasn't welcome.

Ok then ignore that part of my comment it doesn't change much.

Anybody wanting to live on your property, whatever their reasons, who you didn't invite there, is probably not gonna be ok with most people.

First word of the sentence was "imagine" my dude.

There's another comment here in the article explaining the reason he was removed was at the request of the people who owned the property.

Imagine some mentally ill person decides he wants to be at one with nature on your property...

There's two (or more) sides to everything. The people who own the island have the legal right to kick him out. I get your perspective but if he really wants to get back to nature he should find a place where he is welcome to do so.

EDIT: For all the people asking about the details of the property owners asking him to leave, read the article linked in the next top level comment by doall.

TL;DR - Guy who inspired a couple of interesting sci-fi ideas is speaking out on topics he knows nothing about. Shockingly, his uninformed opinion disagrees with people who are informed on the subjects.

Adventure game? Always thought of it as a puzzle game.

The consumer absolutely will not benefit from this.

First of all, building out competing telco networks is nearly impossible. Look at the failure of Google Fiber and Verizon FiOS as examples.

Second, the issue is mostly about how telcos are now the gatekeepers of the entire internet. They now decide if it's an even playing field for everybody, or not. They can now say "Hey if you want to have high speed access to our customers, you have to pay us." and that means that if I want to start up say, a competitor to Youtube, I need a lot more money to do it. I can't just build a platform, I now also have to pay the networks.

And before you say "That seems fair, you're using their networks." Keep in mind the customers are already paying for those networks. So the telcos are double dipping. More than that, since we already know they reap huge profits just off of customers alone before they are able to levy these new fees against services as well.

This is a huge blow to the internet, and historians will look back at this as the point where innovation online began to stagnate and the internet calcified and began to decline.

The only reason pensions are underfunded is that they were plundered. Hold the politicians that broke them responsible, not the workers who earned their benefits.

This is nonsense. Pensions should be and used to be funded when they were set up. The issue is that greedy, irresponsible politicians (many of whom claim to be conservatives) plundered them like piggy banks.

They were brought up all the time when Obama was in office too.

Pensions are not inherently a problem any more than any other form of retirement account is. HN should be above this kind of ignorant rhetoric.

Why would it? It’s just another one sided fluff piece. Basically a press release for the product much like the original article.

You realize the argument you’re making (“Smart people are backing this!”) is exactly how Theranos and many other scams go on as long as they do right?

All I did was bring up some concerns. I did not state any facts, merely point out details that need to be addressed.

Chill out.

On top of the fact that this probably doesn’t scale up to geo-engineering scales linearly even if you assume the article is correct in the costs it gives.

You are making the big assumption this article is accurate and scalable. I’m not so sure.

You’re also assuming that capturing everything scales linearly from capturing something.

> And spending how many hours a month maintaining it and applying updates and security patches

Looks like GitLab puts out one release a month. Not a big deal. One day a month you can roll out the latest and greatest if you really want to. I probably wouldn't even do it that often, depending on what's included.

As far as all the underlying stuff, depending on what Linux distro you pick it should be pretty self maintaining nowadays for everything that's required to self host GitLab. nginx, PHP, etc. will all self update with your package manager of choice.

> setting up monitoring and dealing with downtime?

If you're buying a VPS you shouldn't need to worry about these. Any decent host will make sure your VM is up and have a high enough uptime to be solid for any use case short of enterprise. If you're an enterprise you might want to spend more than $5/mo.

> We're running our own private GitLab server but we thought long and hard before doing it.

Well that's up to you but it's really not hard.

Buy a $5/mo VPS and self host your repositories? It’s really not that hard.

Ryan rightly warns about adding “cute” and unnecessary features to projects. Then he goes and adds the “Load module directly from a URL” feature with all its complexity to Deno.

Ryan; kill that feature now. It’s not needed. It’s just cute.

My reaction as well. One section of this "article" doesn't flow into the other. It's extremely disjointed and incoherent.

Seems like content fluff that would be generated to get SEO and I'm not sure why it made it to the front page.

This is total clickbait. He says performance reviews are terrible so instead.. write a performance review.

Seriously, what performance reviews in 2018 don't involve a self appraisal? Pretty much everything he recommends has been part of the performance review process at my company for the last 8 years. And I'm not saying our process couldn't be improved, but this article offers no real insights of any kind.

It's the current hot buzzword. It's CDN++, where not just static content gets distributed but web applications get sharded/distributed around the globe to the nearest node to the end user.

That’s only for access to their store. Microsoft is much the same when it comes to the Windows store.

If you want to write apps for macOS and distribute them yourself you can do so with no cost.

X Code is not a watered down version of something else. It’s the full application Apple uses themselves.

What? Microsoft is the biggest developer advocate? Apple gives X Code away for free and made Swift an open source, platform agnostic product among many other things.

Web Code is definitely not a solved problem. I am working on a project in Angular right now and it has advantages and major trade offs over writing it in plain JS. I’m at this point not sure it was worth it.

As far as Web UI goes, Angular has the Material Library, Bootstrap was all the rage a few years ago and there would have been this same article in reverse.

But the reality is these things are never solved. You may just feel happy with the current state of something but it won’t stay that way for long. These massive JS frameworks are probably a fad.

> Actually, they do.

Really? That's your reasoned stance? So if I say "Not all blonde people eat boogers." but then find two videos of blonde people eating boogers then my rule is no longer valid?

Unbelievable.

Did you even read what I said?

> means that the best funded candidate tends to dominate. Not always, but it's a huge uphill battle and makes it nearly impossible to be an unfunded candidate taking on the two main parties of the US.

Yes Clinton lost despite outspending Trump, but Obama outspent Romney, and lots and lots of other races go in the favor of the candidate who spent the most.

Two high profile exceptions don't prove the rule false.

Easy answers like this are always oversimplifications. There's problems with our voting system but there's no serious reason to believe simply switching to a different style of voting system alone would fix anything.

We also have terrible gerrymandering that ensures seats are hard to change.

Effectively no limits on political contributions thanks to Citizens United (not that things were great before that but they've gotten much worse) means that the best funded candidate tends to dominate. Not always, but it's a huge uphill battle and makes it nearly impossible to be an unfunded candidate taking on the two main parties of the US.

People pushing easy answers like this aren't doing anyone any favors. Even if somehow their favored solution got adopted, when it fails to be the panacea they've promised people will reject it and call it a failure even if it might have helped the situation.