marricks

Uh, isn’t COVID damaging on your system every time you get? Basically risking long COVID and death?

Also the more cases there are the more chances for mutation. The reasoning is like one step away from antivaxer logic.

Can anyone in this thread link to an actual article and describe how horrible it is? It's perplexing that I'm getting so downvoted and the replies have absolute zero information besides "it's just horrible" which sure, maybe it is, but they've had millions less people die from COVID so I need at least some information to change my mind from "it sure seemed to do it's intended job."

Okay, but an aspirational "Zero-COVID" policy seems to be working out better than the US's "burrying-our-heads-in-the-sand" policy.

I get it may have an impact on economy but, seriously, how can people value human lives so little?

Wait, how is it a failure? I get that their cases have doubled in recent months, but that doubling is from 250 cases a week to 500[1] and their highest spike was a brief 5,000 number of cases in April.

Whereas the US, with a much smaller population, has been rocking at least 10,000 cases a day (and far more deaths) all year, with almost all of May to July having more than 100,000 cases a day.

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

[2] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailycases_...

So when Zuckerberg's social world was Harvard he violated the privacy of the school. Now his social world is different and he'd have less reasons to perform those same crimes. Way more power and reason to perform an entirely different set of crimes though!

Yep, our current system sucks. I happen to think Facebook is much, much, worse than Apple but who knows in 5 or 10 years.

Apple is building its own VR headset and making money off VR hardware seems like a stretch.

I don’t think “progressing in a field” is worthy of applause if you’re just going to use that progress to hurt people. Technology doesn’t just magically make peoples lives better, sorry but the cats out of the bag on that one.

I think there’s a lot of hate because Facebook is an immensely hate-able company that needs its next cash cow and it sure hopes this is it.

Look at the history of it’s core product to see where VR will go if it takes off:

Facebook was the cool place for college students to connect with friends. No ID requirements to sign up and no ads for years. Your feed was just your friends post. Things were great. Now there’s ads in your feed and you need to definitively prove your identity. Not to mention the history of scandals and privacy violations.

They’ll do whatever it takes to get those first 100 million users. Once they get them though all bets are off. Privacy will only get worse, they’ll give up on the initial power users because who cares about a couple million hard core gamers?

Man is our financial system messed up when a company can lose money for 14 years just so it’s impossible for any company to undercut them.

You know once they’re fully a monopoly they’re gonna jackup those prices.

Makes me wonder what system US security agency has for these. Can they ask Apple to disable them for certain areas or by device if you happen to be a target of interest?

It's not just a few days though. I can only speak anecdotally for the pacific north west but...

We used to be known for clean air, rating were typically below 20 AQI for almost all of the year. Now, come fall we have weeks/months hovering around 50 AQI.

How much smoke does it take to move places like Seattle and Portland from clean air paradises to "LA of the 00's" where just living there gives you the lungs of a light smoker?

> and drastically increased his equity stake

But he also to roll a critical three times in a row on a D20 to get a payout. Just to make it have the same feeling as small and scrappy, you know.

That lines up with the impression I got. They lose money CURRENTLY on the high end cards, it sure wasn’t going to get any better.

Might as well get out while the getting is good.

Yeah, it feels like society loves coming up with ways to “handle” problems but never actual solve them.

The future will likely be upper middle class folks walking around in habitat bubbles with VR suits across a toxic desert of miasma.

That's still implicitly making a pro-royalist community, at the cost of making a less flame-baitey community.

Pro-status-quo comments are inherently going to be less divisive because they don't challenge people, and seeing this thread full up of folks commenting on how personally meaningful the queen was to them without ever really being involved in their lives is a testament to that.

That said, I think it may also just go to show that's why royalism discussions shouldn't be the bread and butter of this community.

---

Thanks for the response by the way. I disagree with some things here but I also talk with a number of people from wildly different viewpoints. A true testament to y'alls work.

Gotta love mocking people who were just fired.

Yep, blockers like:

- should we do this?

- who do we hurt by doing this?

- oh god people are hurting why are we still doing this?

> This status-quo bias is what you would expect of a forum run for the benefit of a Silicon Valley for-profit institution

I wanted to reach a broader audience with my phrasing so I didn't call that point out, but I completely agree.

What are you even advocating for? Continuing to prosecute and lock people up when we already have millions in prison? That isn't helping anyone.

The war on drugs is over and the drugs won.

> please don't post flamebait, including ranting against monarchy or railing against "the nobility" like it's 1770

> Positive-empty comments aren't substantive either, but as pg pointed out way back when HN was getting started (https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html), those are benign

Pro status-quo bias. Monarchy isn't as relevant as it used to be but trusting the judgment and leadership of the elite is as relevant as ever and allowing positive-empty comments just reinforces that belief here. I guess that's just the sort of bias HN is ok with.

Who cares whose it's actually targeted at.

Some of them will get lost and some of them will have this smart watch.

And some of those may have an expired feature which could save their life.

I wasn't even thinking about those folks actually, more referring to all the hikers who get lost during a day trip.

It's an unfortunate fact of human nature that once you get used to something existing you expect it to exist*. Something one could easily forget to pay (say you overspent and denied the charge) could end up killing you.

I sincerely hope in two years the SOS feature is free and a limited data plan for $$$ exists. This could also explain the 85% of sat service usage. But we shouldn't have to hope such a thing exists...

* We can hate people all we want for this "feature" but the fact of the matter its how we're built.

A lot of if there was an independent web consortium which agreed on standards.

Which, hey, we do have and the more power chromium gets the more Google can just ignore that.

Hey the tinfoil can go wha deeper than that. Mudge brought up these complaints internally in January of this year which is right when Musk started buying lots of twitter stock.

What I find most wild about this story is Mudge reported this in January which is right when Musk started buying Twitter shares. And now both of those things are coming to a head at the same time.

> add nothing of value for almost a decade

To have one stagnant social media company which offers you basically the same experience for 10 years has to be a defining feature. Everything else seems to change beyond recognition trying to clone whatever the new fad is.

Twitter has had stability and given users basically the experience they wanted. In any sane world the fact they can't grow a further 10x or morph into the next media juggernaut wouldn't matter if they have hundreds of millions of users who like their platform.

The title should be “oldest reconstructed song” besides on through five there’s a song from 4,000 years ago we know of which can’t be reconstructed.

Saying we should expect companies to destroy the free tier is a bit of an insult. The internet was full of free things and companies have been shoving them in our faces for decades.

- "Free gigabytes of mail storage!"

- "Free communication with your teams"

- "Free internet hosting for hobby projects!"

The free tech offerings are just good enough to kill open source or entrenched alternatives. The goal is to suffocate them. Once the competition is gone or investors demand more money destroy the tier/raise prices.

FB is trying to do that to Craigslist with marketplaces, Uber and Lyft and doing that with Taxis, AirBnb with... etc etc etc

If the unstable lenders folded and the mortgage holders could buy out their loans on the cheap, no?

Then the shareholders of the lending company wouldn't be rich-people-broke-where-someone-buys-them-out-and-somehow-they're-all-still-rich they'd be actual-broke-where-they-lost-all-their-money-on-a-stupid-venture.