mikysco

Sure maybe circa 2010 but Apple’s latest & greatest will get you through hell and back, let alone a simple trip through Europe

I must read too many negative articles… this stands out as a feel-good, “real” win-win. The science & cost-benefit is clearly understood even for the non-technical and the implementation seems straightforward, at least at first glance. Would love to see solar farms wildly adopted

Aren't all these homes required to be listed on the MLS before being sold? My understanding is a home (at least in California) can't be sold unless publicly listed for X days on the MLS.

My lord the UX decisions Expensify makes are irritating. They recently changed their web login flow; it now forces users to select whether they'd like to login with email, phone, google, apple... each time they login.

Ride sharing’s empty promises can be chalked up to corporate PR… I don’t imagine most riders or investors consider those when calling a car or investing.

Wrt the measurable externalities (traffic, pollution, etc) - don’t these exist due to the stronger data capture (app based) and public scrutiny? I have a difficult time believing Uber/Lyft are worse on these metrics relative to traditional taxis

I feel like criminals are also abundantly aware at this point they won't face prosecution from SF's DA, so feel agency to commit "minor" crimes like this with impunity. But most of the SF stores do have a very old-school layout.

The overwhelming majority of high-growth technology companies recognize a net revenue loss going into IPO. The purpose of the IPO and prior VC rounds is to finance a strong company & product, and more importantly, help win enough market share early enough in the sector's lifecycle to recognize a full or partial monopoly over the space.

The fact Gitlab are recognizing a loss at IPO could have been predicted at the company's inception.

Server looks overloaded. Cached version from Sept 2: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tPS9Mc...

I genuinely think this is status quo opinion in 2021. At least amongst the HN/reddit demo.

This complaint (and all anti-trust) simply comes down to how the legal body defines the market and to what extent Google dominates said market, no? It'll be interesting to watch this work through the system.

Yes! I don’t know why there’s so much apprehension about calling the restaurant. So often I learn more about the dish I’m ordering - does it come with X ingredient yes/no, should I order Y add-on, is rice extra. Simple questions usually omitted from online menus. Makes the experience just a tiny bit more human and that’s honestly enough for me

Freakonomics did an excellent episode re e-cigarettes and the significant public-policy differences between the US & UK. Adds to this piece and should be interesting to anyone following this area: Episode 398 https://freakonomics.com/podcast/vaping-nicotine/

Love the perspective you present. It made me smile as a system of small, cheap, efficient planes would drastically change the way we think about human movement. So much potential and IMO, a pretty classical "technologist" style paradigm-shift... Creating demand for a service that didn't exist before and simultaneously solving the original problem (expensive, polluting air travel) as a byproduct.

This article saddens me in the same way that my heart aches after learning about a new horror of climate change. The problem is large in scale - a true tragedy of the commons - and impacts those of us who travel on a personal level. As always, the poor are most impacted.

With this said, I still find it easy even in the globe's most popular cities, to escape the crowds and find hidden treasures by wandering sans guidebook/blog/etc. Making an extensive plan before traveling will almost by definition ensure your path crosses with a vast majority of other travelers.

Took me song long to realize this. Just * do it is so often a more effective/efficient methodology than "optimize first". Once I have a strong understanding of scope, marginal adjustments carry more weight when starting something new.

This piece positions Apple as a nefarious actor with exploitative intent. I'd imagine that if Apple built products without holding aesthetics in the highest esteem (like many Android or non-Apple manufacturers do), their audience wouldn't be willing to buy. The market has clearly voted with its dollars - think of how bulky ultra-low-profile earbuds would become if their batteries were replaceable, or how much more susceptible to water damage & general abuse.

And Apple already runs a fairly generous program for old iPhones, which btw, last far longer than their Android counter-parts.

Anyway, not to say that Apple can't improve its recycling process (or incentive systems for consumers to recycle) but to my knowledge, it's far ahead of the competition.

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words. Couldn’t agree more. Think of the comfort CL users have after 10-15 years of the same workflows, the same UI, the same expectations. The skill of vetting scammers shouldn’t be understated and transcends CL.

When I log into a “modern” app today there’s almost always a new feature in my face or an old feature moved to a new location (or simply deprecated)