ohyeshedid

And now you've got me wondering if anyone has ever tried to compare likes to profitability of product launches.

The first part of your opening sentence is demonstrative of my point, followed by both explanations. You manually touched the thread 3 times, and did nothing to verify or proactively protect the community, but speech you missed the context on is actionable. You've responded to me multiple times, but you still haven't done anything to correct the problem we were all addressing.

..and yeah, I disagree, as I did originally. I think you're being intellectually dishonest here now. So that's three shades.

The analog to 'because I said so' in the world of tools, is a hammer. As I said, it's your hammer, swing it or don't, but spare me the links to your own search results about communication when you aren't actually participating genuinely.

You stuck this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29165602

You posted this, whether by userscript or directly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29167680

and then this subthread, where we're having this conversation after dinging me.

The OP didn't disclose the requirement of a browser extension. The linked site didn't function in two out of three browsers, and prompted extension installs on Chrome. It was also breaking in user tests.

The users responded as they did. When the extension requirement became the core topic, OP rotated between multiple reasons for why, including some rather bad generalizations about google being a $2trn company, users not being smart enough to switch the default search provider, and almost-but-not-quite admitting it's user capture.

They were back in the other thread debating back and forth, and called out about dishonesty in regards to more of their product claims since. They also removed the extension requirement.

Where were you?

You dinged me, a day later, but never said a word to OP about the need to disclose unexpected software installation requirements for a search service? You allowed them to post, in two separate threads, and market their product with dark patterns.

That's how pile-on's happen, Dan. The product didn't work as submitted, as it required an undisclosed software installation on only one browser, and didn't function at all on others.

Did you test the landing page before sticking their promotional comment?

Did you test it at all?

Do you verify any of the submissions?

If so, why didn't you verify this one?

Why are Show submissions allowed to promote their products with dark patterns?

The people that care about this community's fellow members rightly piled on, because you weren't doing anything about it. This is not the first time this situation has happened. That pile-on is the public screaming warnings to those who might be unaware of potential danger.

Good faith says you just missed the context because you're swamped, I get it man.

When you start dictating what other peoples words mean, without context, and trying to redefine their communication styles to fit your preferred format, on top of the perspective I just shared; How do you think that looks?

I think your approach on this, from the initial submission up, is either disingenuous or careless. I think you fired from the hip, based on my comment, and didn't do anything to actually address, or understand, the cause of the issues in this thread, or the other one.

I don't see anything disrespectful in that comment; it was made entirely in good faith.

That concept becomes tricky in situations like this, because you're assuming bad faith, and then tone policing based off that. My point of view is that you got it wrong this time, but that doesn't really matter, you're the one with the hammer, boss. o7

Fwiw, HN needs an alert/messaging system of some kind to deliver these moderation messages to users. If I don't see you responded in an official capacity before I post enough to push it to second page of my profile, I may never see it, which means it's not serving it's entire purpose. The public signaling part works, but the direct signaling could easily get lost. I know usually you aren't doing this a day later, but in those cases, there's gotta be a better solution.

Likes and dislikes don't ultimately matter to Google, engagement does. Viewing is enough: likes, dislikes, comments; those are just multipliers.

Hiding dislikes is something Brands want.

Respectfully: because nobody knows who the fuck you are, and your reasoning doesn't make sense.

You want to offer a privacy focused search service, but the users need to install an extension because otherwise <some gibberish about google evil here> instead of just having a regular web frontend for the masses to try. Then it's too hard for lusers to switch; you created this problem for yourself.

The more you respond, the more it looks like this is some poorly thought out lead capture, or you're so focused on the service you don't understand the broader security concerns.

> It is a 5 second install or uninstall.

I could smoke your os in less time. Time isn't the issue here.

> Tbh, the browser extension is the best method for now

Most of the people here, so far, are directly telling you it's not.

Dobman/Daudman were my original thoughts, because I've known two families.

I'd be willing to wager there are at least 100 HN members that had that exact meeting, with those exact dynamics, before this thread was even posted this morning.

> ...in any event BM is not a common letter sequence in English.

Mainly names, no?

What did you do and what did they get you for can be wildly different questions and realities.

Unsolicited personal advice: The latter opens more doors of meaningful conversation, the former can slam those doors before you can walk through them.

Steam is not like Netflix in any meaningful way to the end user.

>If this fraud stuff trips you up you aren't doing it right.

That mentality, across the entire ad industry, is how I retired before 40. Assumptions of security, understanding, and operating knowledge create huge blindspots, and those were my flow state.

It's always hard to judge scale perfectly in pictures, but the base on those towers would be at least 2 traffic lanes, if not 4 wide. They didn't say what size highway.

EDIT: According to another comment[1], the cut is 75ft wide. That's enough for 6 lanes.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101500

What signal would you send that isn't detectable by anyone but you?

Seemingly, most of those people don't have a realistic concept of scale.

MSSQL isn't foss; you pay what it's worth to you as part of the licensing. That's one of the issues at play here, paying for software licenses versus using foss components to build your own saas, and then donating something to the foss maintainers.

A simpler way to say this: What's the average compensation for a developer, and how many hours do you think it would take for one of your developers to build some small foss component? I bet it's more than the $500 donation.

> What's a good (practical, repeatable, reasonable) way to determine fairness?

If, by magic, these OSS components you use disappeared: How much would it cost to build them?

I'm not taking a stance here, I'm just interested.

Maybe comparing the bill from a trucking company against the bill from the rail; How much does it cost to get that freight from the train station to my delivery location, though?

They weren't bidding on keywords, though, just airtime.

That's an entirely different advertising model and market.

That's because self-hosted implies choice of where it's run; you don't offer that.

What is the business relationship between you and the OP?

You're both trying to redefine what everyone understands as self-hosting, in some seemingly direct ways.

Even if all of that is updated and secure; with the services exposed, it's less than trivial to make that service eat the small amount of memory it has to work with, and take down the network it manages.

Might help to clarify if you mean for people or corporations.

AFAIK, for the setup they're talking about, you do need a dedicated GPU. You blacklist it on the host, and pass it through to the windows VM.

I haven't worked in windows space in awhile though, and state changes rapidly, so there may be other options now that utilize a single GPU across host and vm without losing performance.

> Actually, dnd is a stylized, simplified form of wargaming that gained popularity in the early 20th century, replacing formulas with dice rolls.

That's the entirety of what you wrote. Correct the sentence, not the people reading it as written.

Then there's the bit about:

>...gained popularity in the early 20th century...

I don't think the 70's count as early in the 20th century.

Reminds me of Kingsford Charcoal.[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsford_(charcoal)

Collusion doesn't need to happen at the point of sale, it could be wholesalers or the growers setting a price structure.

This is correct.