handsclean

Front page vote counts are now typically 1/10th what they were before the exodus, and bot content is visibly more prevalent. If you expected the website to die overnight, that was just an unrealistic definition of failure for a large website. Digg, the failure that founded Reddit, is still alive today. MySpace still exists. AOL is still selling dial-up internet. Failure at this scale is a slow slide to irrelevance, and Reddit is well on its way. The only winner here is the CEO.

If you really think not taking product news at face value is conspiratorial, you’re far too trusting. The transactions I’m theorizing here are very common and not illegal.

“Surprisingly desperate” seems to not be coming across as I intended, I meant only that it’s surprising that a product that should sell itself is instead searching for use cases, as weakly evidenced by this article but more strongly evidenced by their many past pivots without significant adoption.

This seems far from the best way to accomplish the goal, and has been turned into a big photo op, which to me comes across as a probable discount for publicity trade, indicating Boston Dynamics being surprisingly desperate for real world use cases. For all the progress in autonomous robots, maybe they’re actually in a sort of uncanny valley of generalization: more general than previously possible, but not general enough to unlock most tasks that previously couldn’t be automated.

This seems like a clear cut case of a missing permission: for an app to be allowed to access your interactions with a domain, it should need to either prove it owns the domain, or receive user permission to access the domain. This safely covers the legitimate use cases of punting out some UI to your website and of just providing a way to view websites in-app, while for iffier use cases permitting both informed consent and fallback to displaying the page without handing out access to it.

I think they’d just make it with Pepsi and call it a “rum and coke” anyway. “Coke” is the generic word for all soda/pop, including Pepsi, in much of the US and world, and I think “rum and coke” also qualifies as a name in its own right.

Imagine this is a code library and I think it’ll become clear that while only uniqueness may be strictly necessary, inconsistent, undescriptive naming is harmful to API consumers, and to a lesser extent harmful to the implementers.

These are registrations, not documentation of independent usage, so yes, there’s somebody in charge, the IETF. They can enforce good naming, and do: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8615#section-3. They just apparently have either granted or grandfathered in many exceptions.

My understanding:

1. You use the username to connect to Bob.smith.123. This creates a conversation with the user who currently has that username.

2. You can’t see that user’s username, just “Bob Smith” or their name in your contacts, so them changing or deleting their username isn’t even visible to you. Your conversation is unaffected.

3. If, in the future, you add username Bob.smith.123 again, it may be a different person.

I think the name is a mistake, I’d have called it an “add code” or something. Clearer to explain a new thing than to say a word that means a dozen wrong things and always be correcting everybody.

If specialization were always better then we’d hire a different specialist to press each key on the keyboard. Specialization is only efficient when the specialist can do a better job, and by enough to outweigh overhead. Rough sorting is extremely basic and requires no “training”, so specialization is less efficient, and serves only to shift work to people whose time is valued less.

> Which is what happens, many restaurants now close earlier, open later, close during the afternoon, or otherwise reduce hours.

And the hours that they remain open are not being subsidized, so your initial assertion that off peak customers are being subsidized was not true.

> Yes, that is called business.

Since you so accept acting purely in your own self interest, then surely you feel the same righteousness on behalf of customers responding inline with their own self interest, right?

You continue to conflate this announcement of time of day pricing with just about every other influence on pricing, even those working in the opposite direction. Prices already change all the time, the new thing is just the surge pricing. There are many ways to deal with surges, from dynamic staffing to streamlined kitchens to additional locations to what’s presumably the current strategy, all of those plus sometimes making people wait. Wendy’s seems to believe surge pricing might sometimes be the most profitable option, whether that’s true depends entirely on specifics that we don’t have and customer response.

If it were a subsidy then Wendy’s would be closed during downtimes.

If it were about wages then the plan would raise prices when wages increase overnight, not lower them. In general, prices are always about demand, not cost.

People don’t cancel their weekend plans because Uber isn’t surging, they avoid or delay Uber when it is surging. It’s about spreading out the surge.

Acting like the opposite is untenable is ridiculous, it’s the way the whole world works and has worked forever, except for one industry that gets away with everybody hating them because people have no alternative.

It’s solely about increasing profits at the expense of customers, let’s not pretend anything else.

1.25 ^ 10 ≈ 10

The comparison point is a kitchen sink, not a chef’s knife, and Cybertrucks rust after only a few days in the rain, and somewhere it doesn’t snow. Some stainless steels don’t even rust in salt water. They could have chosen a stainless steel that wouldn’t rust, they just didn’t. It could be a mechanical compromise, but the shell isn’t pushing mechanical requirements. I think it’s much more likely cost cutting, supplier problems, aesthetics, ineptitude, or a sleazy attempt to sell more wraps. Whatever it is, it was avoidable.

The way I internalize it: public voting selects for layman plausibility, not correctness.

Because laymen massively outnumber experts, the layman vote always overwhelms the informed one, so the reaction of people who don’t know the subject is the only thing that matters. Truth only seems to matter because most subjects either can be somewhat intuited by non-experts, or are in a niche that you’re not, so “layman plausibility” means your reaction, too. But the true nature of the dialog reveals itself as soon as people talk about something you’re an expert on.

Answers like this aren’t a bug in a truth machine, they’re a plausibility machine working as designed.

Please stop calling this “cracking down on password sharing”. That’s spin that frames it as an improper act and enforcement against it, making readers think “I may not like it but I guess it’s what’s right”. The truth is these companies sold access to a certain number of simultaneously active “screens”, and now they’re changing the offering to a single household only. The true version of this headline is “Hulu limits plans to one household, just like Disney Plus and Netflix”. It’s a new limitation, not a crackdown. It’s on location, not password sharing - there are still profiles to select who you are when you log in.

As it always does, stripping spin makes the rest of the story easier to spot: that this has strong parallels with cable, and that this is a gym-like business model of keeping people utilizing only some slim fraction of the capacity they think they’ve bought.

(This isn’t a callout to OP, I know the guidelines require the website’s title. But, tangentially, I strongly disagree with the guidelines on this point: sticking with the website’s title doesn’t reduce editorialization, it just shifts control of it from HN users to propagandists.)

The behavior of distant galaxies actually doesn’t match physics on earth. It’s a huge open problem. The leading hypothesis is dark matter, but that resists experimental confirmation despite extended effort, and has plenty of doubters.

Besides that, I think we’re assuming too much about their motives and capabilities. Who’s to say simulating dust clouds isn’t the point, and we’re just an accident? Or that the point is a survey of the evolution of astronomical systems, or an attempt to predict the fate of the universe? And, since any technology that could simulate even this planet is completely beyond human comprehension, why should we expect them to scale up only about as efficiently as humans do, rather than, say, orchestrating some reaction that results in a computer that grows exponentially and boundlessly? Or that the purpose or mechanism are as beyond our comprehension as a machine that could simulate Earth? Or, if they do have a point of limiting cost, why should we have any idea where that is, and where the cost is so low that resources are spent like they’re free?

Honest question: what’s so awful about WEBP? Though it’s worse than the gen arriving now, it’s better than or the same as the one before it for the use cases it supports, and free and open. I get the impression people associate it with brokenness and low quality, but the brokenness is just a lack of support, and the quality a creator choice. Maybe its original sin was not trying to be suitable for original data, leading to the low quality association and making support less desirable outside of the web, but if that’s the case then AVIF is in the same boat.

They communicate OS version device compatibility, I’m talking about communicating OS version EOL. For example, Windows 10 EOL is 2025-10-14, and we know this years in advance. For Apple, not only do we not get advance notice, we don’t even know when it’s already happened.

No, I’m not implying there’s something wrong with shipping the occasional update to EOL devices.

It’s an issue of expectations. If Apple advertises security support then it’s fraudulent to not deliver it; on the other hand, if they advertise an EOL date, then I’d agree there’s no reasonable expectation of security updates. But what they actually do is neither, they communicate very little, supporting some past iOS versions fully and others to degrees that only they know, resulting in them profiting off a reputation for backporting security updates while not actually binding themselves to deliver it, or, often, doing so.

Like the battery issue, I feel the whole issue is communication. Apple needs to communicate when they EOL OS versions. You don’t otherwise know it, partly because EOL OS’s, including this phone’s, still get security updates, just not all of them.

“You’ve got to pay us for protection.”

“From what?”

“From what we’re gonna do to you if you don’t pay us for protection.”

It’s the same thing. Listing visible SSIDs and comparing them to very comprehensive databases is the whole way precise geolocation works in many devices, like MacBooks. I think even phone navigation has GPS much less precise than you see on screen, and the extra precision is gained with this technique. Making this technique really work is a large part of the reason Google drove or walked every street in the world with their recording gig.

I’m curious to know how this hasn’t cratered product quality in Japan, since I’d think that preventing even deserved reputation damage would reward behavior normally only balanced by that reputation damage, like pulling a product quality bait and switch. Is there another uncensored system? Is there a quality difference between exports and own consumption?

You may have already considered this, but dragging desired folders into the last section of the dock accomplishes some of the same things.

Interesting that he assumes this is advertisers attempting to control him/X/Twitter. Others would assume advertisers are just doing what they think is profitable, without care for how it affects him. Musk’s assumption isn’t implausible, though, because the specific advertisers in question are very politically active. I wonder if Musk’s assumption is an informed belief, a line for his base, or just personal perception.

Context: https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299

It’s trivial to implement this in a legal and user friendly way, just make the save button make clear that it’ll persist, or even add a persistence checkbox. Demanding consent as an aggressive popup when it isn’t necessary for anything but ad tracking is not a good faith compliance effort, it’s an attempt to avoid real compliance by just having the user just sign off on whatever they were already doing.

The g is Kagi’s logo. It made me think it’s a Kagi blog, but they’re apparently not associated, it’s just a free font called Lufga. Font was released in 2020, Kagi logo in 2021. It’s weird, Kagi branding leans quite heavily on that lowercase g. (They do, though, have the wisdom to not use it in body text.)

Not masked in Apple Maps. Weird. https://maps.apple.com/?address=141%20Boulevard%20Mortier,%2...

There are two types of people, people who take responsibility for things that aren’t directly their fault, and people who regularly experience negative outcomes.

Okta chose this vendor and they chose to have them store this data. They probably even have security requirements in their contract with them. They could have prevented this. And when you present yourself as a security company, you’re expected to.

Noted on the definition of the word “decentralized”, but the comment I was replying to was specifically about the ability to “send/receive code and patches”, that’s what I haven’t seen done without a central sync point.