5,914 karma · joined January 10, 2011
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/unmarried-single-ame...
I think a lot of men focus on dating apps specifically (where the numbers actually are super imbalanced) which creates the perception of a large imbalance everywhere, a perception that isn't really true in general.
For example, why does the Surface Go 3 still sell with a "Core i3" or "Pentium Gold 6500Y" in it, when it could have this Qualcomm chip in it. Qualcomm's Gen 8 is approximately 3x faster while also being lower cost and having lower power draw! Why does a $500 Go 3 ship with "4GB Ram" and "64GB eMMC" when this Qualcomm devkit can ship with 32GB ram and 512 nVME SSD for just $100 more? These are the products that should be Qualcomm-ified, it would be an immediate improvement to people buying this, over any other current PC comparable.
Instead, the consumer version of this Windows devkit is a "Surface Pro 9", which when equivalently spec'd to the devkit, comes out to $1900 USD. At that price, nearly any Intel / AMD / Mac comparable is a way better pick.
> I assume you mean the state or federal government wants to introduce a new law.
Why? If it were any other issue, no one would care about the distinction. If Allegan County, Michigan banned firearms, people would still claim it's an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights, even though it's just "concerned parents asking relevant institutions at the local level" and not necessarily a state/federal law. But when that same exact county bans books and/or libraries instead, suddenly it "doesn't count" for some reason?
The local township library and school board are both literally the government, and the book banning is largely happening based on local election results (typically county positions and/or school board positions -- both from election ballots)
It's not wrong at all to say the government is banning books -- that statement is objectively correct, it's just happening at the lowest levels of government.
I'm still convinced this is how he makes more than half of all of his decisions (see for example, him 'building a submarine' or 'boring/loop'). His success seems to be because he sometimes takes already-known-obvious-good bets that no other person could take first because they aren't billionaires.
> The best I can guess, is it's a political play?
I don't think it's a political play, so much as he got angry and impulsive and jumped in without thinking, couldn't back out, and desperately needs to ret-con this into making any sense, so is pivoting in into a political play.
I'm not sympathetic to someone dropping $1,400 USD on a new laptop, and gets written off because "consumer _anything_ is hit or miss".
Like, half of the complaints come from devices like the XPS 13, which isn't some $300 cheap-o WallMart special, that's supposed to be their flagship top-of-the-line device. If Apple did the same to like, the MacBook Air or whatever, there would be months-long complaint threads all over HN about it.
When kids get older, they get a lot more "fun" and a lot less immediate work. I can take my eldest two out pretty much anywhere without a ton of effort, they are fun to hang out with, they can be trusted to be kind and respectful in adult spaces, and they'll invite me into kids spaces, etc.
But also, anything can happen. Anything can happen. Your kids could be born with lifelong conditions or issues. They could be healthy at young ages, but develop special conditions as they hit early childhood or late adolescence. They could struggle with lifestyle issues (violence, drugs, alcohol, crime, etc). You may just end up not liking them very much (you may end up wishing they were more like you, when they aren't), they may have hobbies that differ from you, they may choose careers you'd prefer not, they may choose religious views you disagree with, they may end up being LGBTQIA+ even if you aren't, and so on. We have one child who is at high risk of never developing cognitively enough to safely live on their own as an adult -- anything can happen.
Having a child is a literal forever commitment -- even more so than any marriage is -- to love and care for a person that might not even exist yet, no matter who they end up being. Be absolutely ready to make a literal lifetime commitment to love and care for this child as a fellow human, before deciding to have one.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with opting out of all of that, and spending your 20's, 30's or lifetime doing something else -- having a child is a huge responsibility, and not something anyone should ever get pressured into, or jump into capriciously.
As someone doing both, my frontend JS/react pipeline has noticeably longer compile times (both to build locally, and for users rendering client-side) than my server-side one.
> There is a reason why JS was invented.
JS isn't here because it's "fast". JS is here because it shipped in browsers, and browsers were popular. JS got fast, after lots of people put a ton of effort into their JS implementations for almost two decades straight to make it so.
(See https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2012/12/04/arewefastyet-... from ten years ago as just one of many, many examples)
The blog post reads like an Intern who is/was a Redditor wrote it. The "GPU buckled into a seatbelt" is an old-but-common PC Builder Meme/Tradition online (particularly Reddit).
https://www.google.com/search?q=gpu+seatbelt&tbm=isch
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4skdlg
Here, the fake claim isn't the brand name, it's the product itself. He's selling a thing that looks exactly like a land survey, that's being used as if it's a land survey, but actually isn't. His measurements may be right (they probably aren't, this guy is mostly just scraping and reselling Google Maps, including literal screenshots from his browser, I sure hope he's paying the licensing fees to do that legally). But even if his measurements were per-millimeter accurate, it wouldn't change the problem. He's selling things that are intended to be used like land surveys, but aren't.
---
If I bought a printer, and I printed off some money, and it's a perfect reproduction (identical size, identical weight, identical materials, identical to any other dollar), is it a fake dollar? If I put on my website that these fake dollars are "not intended to replace real US currency", but don't actually mark that anywhere on the dollars themselves, am I good to go?
If I actually want to be in the "fake money" business ethically (say as a prop for plays and movies, or as a toy for kids), would it not be reasonable to require me to declare it as such? (Like fake money usually does, right on each bill? See https://propmoviemoney.com/collections/full-print-prop-money - 'Motion Picture Use Only' - as an example)
I don't. As someone who has actually worked in compliance and accreditation, fakes and frauds happen constantly, and regular laypeople have no reasonable way to know whether they're being defrauded over this or not. Web startups that claim to offer "Guaranteed Acceptance" (like his does) without having actually done any of the compliance work to earn that acceptance, are common -- the field is ripe with abuse.
"Absense of certification" is how you end up with food that's poisoned (it didn't promise not to be poisoned) or products that electrocute you (it didn't promise not to zap you) or fake land surveys (it didn't promise not to hold up in court)
You shouldn't have to be an expert in every single field on the entire planet, to not get scammed 24/7/365. It's one major reason why we require licensed professionals in the first place. A regular person might only see a land survey once or twice in their entire life, they can't be expected to know that these random website ones are fakes.
This person is selling drawings he knows are commonly used in place of land surveys, that are fake -- he's not a land surveyor, he's not licensed to sell these. (He could just get licensed, it's not that hard, every other surveyor in my state has done so, there's no cap or limit on licensing of these, it's not difficult to perform them legally).
--
His argument is no different than a fellow selling fake Drivers Licenses trying to get out of their consequences by claiming the board wants to "make printing photographs illegal"
> Sometimes it is appropriate to require a license professional to certify something, other times it is not
Sure, but property lines are a pretty clear place where a licensed professional needs to certify it. If you let laypeople do it without knowledge, then property rights start to lose the ability to get enforced fairly.
It's not illegal to get an informal survey of land. It's illegal to pass a fake one off as legal, which is what is commonly happening with his "drawings".
"Taking a picture of yourself" and "writing your name and address on it" are legal, but if you open a Fake Drivers License business, you should expect to get hassled about it. A tiny line of text reading "this is not a real license and should not be used as one" shouldn't absolve you of all responsibility for your product.
I would argue Valve is the main driver of VR in terms of actual software + hardware + platform building. Facebook is just the biggest spender on VR right now.
> Who would actually use this?
Which is funny to me, because I can instantly think of over a dozen use cases for this stuff -- if Facebook was never involved. Use it for training, especially on-site training, use it for conferencing, use it for 3D visualization (basically half of the Hololens demos cross over)
But with Facebook owning it, the value prop of Oculus Quest is zero. It's no longer a hardware or software platform, it's a console, effectively no different than a Nintendo Switch or a PlayStation. Doesn't matter if the Quest was the best thing ever invented, no one reading Hacker News could deliver any products or solutions on it without Facebook owning/controlling it, so there's no reason for anyone to try.
I'm not sure Tesla is "far ahead" of the competition, so much as they announce stuff earlier and attract more hype and fanfare. (Compare Cybertruck to the Silverado EV, for example -- Tesla was years earlier in announcement and parties, but only a few months off from each other in likely actual ship date. Similarly, Tesla has been announcing/mentioning the 'Model 3' as their 'affordable family car' as far back as like 2008, but the Bolt EV actually shipped in late 2016, and the comparable Tesla Model 3 didn't ship until mid 2017).
In terms of "why enter the energy business", it's an easy "nearly freebie" line of business if your building EV's already. (Like how Starbucks slowly added food to their menu, as McDonalds slowly added fancy coffees). Nissan, for example, launched the Leaf EV in 2010, and has been dabbling in home energy since at least 2015 or so.
> Are there any late mover advantages GM has here?
GM has a fleet of support infrastructure in place, as well as trustworthy guarantees on replacement parts and service. Tesla historically has done the opposite, preferring a more Apple-like proprietary parts and vertically-integrated labour network.
That difference may not matter much on consumer electronics, but when your buying 10+yr long vehicles or bolting things to your house with 20+ yr lifespan expectations, it may factor in a lot more.
And software that can't be estimated is still useful, even if you can't plan releases around it yet. "Apple has been unable to accurately estimate any release window for the Apple Car or Apple VR. Therefore no one should invest in it." would be a pretty silly statement, right?
I'd be highly surprised if, of all possible things, this is where they want to cut to lower electricity usage.
Yeah, "speed limits" are primarily a political game, not anything based in reality. Roads designed for 55 get labeled 45 (in 1990) then 40 (2000) then 35 (2010) and then "road dieted" to 25 (2020). Everyone's "speeding" on paper, but not in reality -- they're going the speed they're were always supposed to go. But politically, people just decided slower=nicer for their particular stretch of street (they already live there, so 'walkability' is just fine for them, strip out all the lanes, throw garbage into the street, whatever) without really caring about how badly it would impact public transportation for everyone in general. It's a textbook "tragedy of the commons" problem.
If you enforce this by vehicle, everyone's going to flip out (because the fake-posted-speed-limit is way below what any sensible person is actually safely driving) and you'll see a significant number of people instantly jailbreak their cars to fix it.
Ok sure, but a "Project Lead" is just another title for a manager. Calling your managers something else, doesn't make them not-a-manager.
It's not an either/or, it should be both. A good manager must be at least good at anything their staff is doing and a good manager should be there to help them, let staff do their jobs, and stay out of the way.
If the manager isn't really good at (or an expert in) the role under them, then by definition they can't be a good manager, because they couldn't actually help their staff. But a manager shouldn't be doing their staff's job (they shouldn't be micromanaging), they should have trust in their staff to do good work, and only get involved when explicitly asked, or when something has gone too far off the rails.
---
It should be a "trust but verify" situation. You should trust your team to do work, and stay out of their way to let them do it, but also know enough of the specifics to be able to verify any of it and correct when necessary.
They don't. But that's not necessarily the complaint either.
The argument is that they do have an obligation to not intentionally break the native cell service you paid for, which is exactly what they're doing by ignoring the RCS portion of modern LTE (GSMA) spec.
It's got nothing to do with iMessage in truth. iMessage is simply how Apple has chosen to frame their excuse for intentionally breaking your cell service.
It doesn't necessarily look great, but it's not offensively gamerish. There's a nice utility that lets you turn the fans off/on and GPU on/off, so it gets good battery life with GPU off. USB-C charging supported, nice matte screen, 120hz+ refresh rate. I have mine setup with 40gb of RAM (one 8GB dim is baked on, one is upgradable) and with a replacement Intel wifi chip.
When I need a replacement, I'll probably get the newer 2022-ish G14. They upgraded the USB-C ports (both now support display out), they put better WiFi in by default, and they went all-AMD for CPU+GPU, all of which seem like great ideas to me.
The problem is that everything you've described only provides stability for the owner, and no one else. There's zero reason for an employee to believe money in your bank account somehow provides for their security -- even if you are honest and ethical and magically choose to do it, no one else ever does -- there is no way a reasonable person can believe the owner is just going to keep them on through hard times, just out of the goodness of their heart.
Nothing. Utilities just got lazy. If an address has ever had working landline telephone service or grid electrical service, then there's no good reason they don't also have gigabit fiber service.
RCS is the official messaging spec of the GSMA, they effectively set mobile standards. It's on 90+ mobile operators in nearly every nation on the planet. It's just as widely supported as, say, Voice-over-LTE is (another standard by that same group)
SMS is the outdated standard that's been mostly unused on smartphones since 2018 and is only supported for backwards compatibility. RCS is the replacement for SMS, and is the current ubiquitous and broadly supported standard, since 2019 effectively all modern smartphones and cell network use it.
> Google decided to add support for it to Android in yet another attempt at building their own messaging platform.
No, that's a complete lie. Google added support for it, because they basically had to, it's an industry spec that practically every cellular provider uses. It has nothing to do with "Google's own messaging platform" because RCS is *not* a messaging platform, it's literally just how all messages on all phones work in 2022.
There's no Google service for RCS. There's no login for RCS, there's no accounts for RCS. RCS is not an "app" or a "platform", it's literally just the native default built-in way all messaging from your SIM card works on all ~2019+ smartphones.
> There is no rational reason to take offense that iPhones don't support RCS.
You know what, your right. And by your logic, there's no rational reason for iPhones to support Voice-over-LTE (that's a GSMA push), so maybe every iPhone should drop down to 2G everytime a phone call comes in (but not an iMessage Audio Call, of course). And by your logic, there's no reason for iPhones to support Carrier Roaming (that's another GSMA pushed thing), maybe Apple should ignore that one too.
No it's not. iPhones intentionally don't support modern cellular messaging. There's nothing wrong with insisting they support LTE spec (RCS), like every modern smartphone does.
> The majority of people globally don't even use built-in messengers, they use WhatsApp or a similar application,
Completely unrelated. This discussion has nothing to do with iMessage / WhatsApp / etc. The problem is that Apple forces your SMS texts into effectively-2G-mode, Apple lies about the quality of the messaging you're getting from your native cellular service.
Imagine if they did the same thing to, say, your telephone calls from your phone number by running it through a ton of fake compression, and then said, "well, you could iMessage or Skype or Zoom instead if you don't want us fucking up your phone call audio".
Yes it is. It's literally The One Joke™, with a thin veneer of corporate policy wrapped around it as plausible deniability.
Maybe it's ok if people are different -- even a little "weird" sometimes? Just because someone is different, doesn't mean they have a "mental illness".
I'm not plural, plurality is not my lived experience -- so I can't speak to it -- I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem like any kind of "socially transmissible mental illness". Knowing about something, doesn't make you that thing. Under the logic being used here, you could frame 'friends having a party' as a form of "socially transmissible alcoholism".
And as someone who isn't plural but is LGBTQ+, I'm very used to seeing people pathologizing or criminalizing folks different from themselves, as a veneer of social cover for delivery of their hate. 50 years ago, someone would have called me "insane" or "crazy" or "having a mental disorder" just for existing too -- even the greatest folks can't always escape this hate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Conviction_for_ind...). So it sets off a lot of alarm bells, when folks label someone as having a "mental illness" without a lot of due diligence.