BinaryIdiot

> You may agree with its decision this time, but will you always agree?

To be honest I'm kinda sick of this argument. Someone brings this argument up _every single time_ a tech company takes action against something malicious. It's a strawman argument at best and at worst a way to give people an out on acting against something that could harm the user.

> Apple's wielding of power in this way is likely to attract the attention of groups such as copyright/IP lobbyists, which have an immense desire to have all "non-authorised" files/software erased from all user's machines.

This will never happen.

I mean, journalists could also see this if they employed people with disabilities that required them to use such accessibility features. Considering it took an outage to show them I'm guessing few to zero companies do.

I used to think this way. Worked at 3 different start-ups, actually.

I lost a lot of my good years and what's worse when you're working so much is you can't even take care of yourself very well. Plus any type of "payout" from equity or similar is incredibly rare and even when it happens it's even more rare for it to be structured in your favor (you likely could be making more elsewhere for less time).

If you actually enjoy it then go ahead. But personally I think it's a mistake for the vast majority of folks and I don't think it's something that should be ever expected. In my experience it has always pointed to poor management. Calling companies better run "easier" is just a cheap shot at putting them down.

Time is your most important asset.

The few folks I knew who worked at Tesla told me it's basically 60 hours a week at a minimum. It's not uncommon to find someone sleeping in the office or folks going out to dinner and coming right back to work.

The last person I talked to was looking for a new job. He loved what he was working on and felt proud of his work but was also feeling extremely burned out and wanted to stop working every weekend and evening. He also told me they use _literally every_ technical stack. He had worked on a Ruby app, a Python app, a .Net app, a .Net Core app, and many of them are supposed to work together they were just written that way because whoever started it was more familiar with a specific language.

It doesn't sound like a great place to work for to me. I talked to someone at SpaceX who told me similar things but it sounded like their usage of random tech stacks was at least lower than Tesla's.

Hmm. When I need to find a specific JS library I do a search and there are a good 20+ of them all with different dependencies, levels of support, different past issues, etc. It's so difficult to pick a good one. I mean, you can just _pick one_ and go on with your life but if you pick the wrong one it can really bite you.

Whereas with C# or Java or Ruby or Python or countless other languages the standard library is big enough that a quick search, find an example and boom I'm done (I always thought the MSDN was amazing; it's like Mozilla's JS documentation but for C# with tons of awesome examples). If it's highly complex I can find a library that likely depends mostly on standard library functions and not have to worry about tons of dependencies.

I do a ton of development in JS and I think its standard library is one of its biggest flaws. ECMA would rather avoid adding too much to it as they seem to view the language as a small, scripting language and the platform should provide everything. That's a valid view, I think, but I don't agree with it at all. It's grown far too much to keep that view IMO.

1. It's great PR. Ive is very well known and liked outside of Apple (and probably inside, depending on who you worked with if we're to believe the article is correct). You're not wrong, though. They should have included more people to showcase as designers.

2. Yeah I agree, that doesn't make much sense. I've also seen a lot of places saying his departure will severely hurt Apple but he leads a team, he probably is rarely directly involved in anything anyway. I don't see how him leaving changes anything, honestly.

The common usage of the word "free" is something like "without cost" (yours doesn't work and I actually couldn't find a definition that explicitly says "money"). Placing ads in an app has various costs, just not usually monetary. I don't think you need to redefine anything or go to this odd extreme you're trying to straw-man into the argument.

> How on earth would it do that? WiFi alone is a significant part of the latency here!

Today there is input and display lag. You send the input to the box for processing. In streaming you send the input to a box who then relays that to a server. If you can cut out the server you can reduce a bunch of latency. It won't have lower latency than a locally played game but you can make it close enough.

> Not to mention the huge jitter it brings. Screw in your smart cheap-ass 802.11b light bulb and watch your game feel off.

Your knowledge of WiFi seems to be about 8 years out of date. Not only is it really difficult to find 802.11b anything anymore (even stuff buried in a basement; seriously 802.11b devices started coming out in 1999) but this is pretty much a non issue in almost any router made in the past decade. The majority of routers (especially the better ones) use dual or tri bands to better handle interference and backwards compatibility with older standards.

If you have issues with your WiFi I'd suggest upgrading your router. Seriously, they're pretty great nowadays especially if you get a triband almost anything :)

> Is there any tech in the controller?

Yes. The controller connects directly to your game instance over WiFi. It doesn't need to go through a box first and be relayed (this can shave a significant amount of latency off controller inputs).

> What "costs" $129 if there's a subscription model attached to this?

For $129 you get a controller ($69), a Chromecast Ultra ($60), 3 months of Stadia Pro ($30), the full Destiny 2 game with all the DLC ($?? I forget).

You may be confused with how Stadia Pro works. It's just like PS Plus, you occasionally get a free game or two and it enables you to play at 4K in 5.1 surround sound. Without Stadia Pro you can still play any Stadia game you own, without a fee.

> why wouldn't there be compatibility with Xbox or PS4 controllers?

But there is compatibility with XBox and PS4 controllers. It was in the video and in their original announcement. You just can't really use them with the Chromecast AFAIK but you can with any computer and some tablets / phones.

> but why try and reinvent the wheel with a new controller?

You can bring your own or use theirs for the best latency / game experience possible on Stadia.

I'm not sure I follow. You buy your games like you would with any console. It's just the console is "in the cloud" and you only pay the monthly subscription if you want the higher quality stream and the occasional free game (think PS Plus).

How would an ad supported version fit into that model? I thought it was a fantastic model!

Based on some rough, early estimates the input lag with Stadia is incredibly impressive. I originally thought it would never work for many types of games like you say but now I'm reserving judgement. It's not impossible at least.

I don't think so. Google has announced it would be coming to more phones and devices in the future and they consistently say "tablets" instead of ChromeOS tablets. It's a service, it would be silly to ignore literally a billion possible customers (or whatever the iOS numbers are now).

> I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and for all.

Yup, I'm with you. At this point I don't care what the truth is, it would just be nice for it to be out in the open so the nonsense articles we get every single year stop.

Maybe. But don't forget this is a small company of just two people. Yes the backups should have been off site but relying on just one digital partner at that scale isn't the worst (they're unlikely to have the money or time to federate out to other services).

Yes, ideally they would have already tested their back-up solution, the back-ups would be offsite and, if something like this happened, they could stand-up on another provider. But that just ignores the reality of them being a super tiny business. Almost no one at that size is going to do that.

You seem to have not really read my comment, made some assumptions and created some straw-men. I'm not entirely sure why.

As I mentioned before I switched entirely to Firefox about a year ago. I only switched back fairly recently (Firefox shipped separate processes _years_ ago). I also continue to use Firefox daily at work. It still isn't as good, as much as I hate to say it. Some issues have gotten better but not all. They are still not equivalent (especially in web dev tooling) and many sites, like YouTube, still have weird issues in Firefox (full screen mode on my Surface Pro 4 still doesn't work right; it's like it switches to a weird software renderer).

Chrome just _always_ works. And I hate to say it, too.

Ugh. Look, I used to use Chrome as my primary browser but I switched to Firefox like a year ago. I tried really, really hard to stay with Firefox. But it just doesn't work as well as Chrome. I get that it's not entirely Firefox's fault. Sometimes it is (for instance when things crash in Firefox it almost always crashes my entire browser, Chrome never crashes that way). But it's hard to tell a user to go use another browser when everyone is testing and using Chrome.

It's IE6 all over again just in different ways.

Perhaps I'll try a chronium fork. Sure it's not as good of a move but maybe I'll have better luck with issues. I'll likely try Firefox again to see if things are better (I usually use Firefox for some things at work anyway).

Thank you. These are fair points. When attempting to talk to various folks years ago the WHATWG always made it easier for me but I see your point.

Yup. They even link to a sponsored article as an authoritative source regarding eating take out. This article is a mess.

Yeah, performance is a hard issue especially with well established applications.

Experimentation is fun. Good luck, wish I could help you more :)

I mean, I get that. But if you're a business or even an individual who was an interest in how the internet is being shaped you have to either pay a ton of money or somehow get them to invite you.

WHATWG seems to have found a way to manage the noise of allowing essentially anyone in to comment and contribute.

The worst part is, it doesn't seem like they'll be able to. I'm curious what happens if they ultimate need additional / different sensors to make it happen. Do they replace those parts for free?

> This isn’t practical at all in a latency sensitive environment.

Other than Google Streaming / Stadia and some AMP sites I have never seen a Google site / app load in less than 2 seconds or so (which is kinda slow, all things considered). So I'm a little confused about this latency sensitive environment statement.

Sure, what you say is correct in that using agent strings can provide an optimized bundle to the browser the faster, but isn't there far better optimizations that Google could make first? I've seen and worked on very fast, sub second web apps before so this argument feels more speculative than any good reasoning.

Besides, you shouldn't be gating _so hard_ with agent strings anyway. The non-Chromium version of Edge is probably fine on YouTube as well. You likely want to gate away the obvious offenders, assume the best with the newer browsers but allow a fallback option that detects a few things on load so you can adjust and set cookies for the next time.

It's probably an unpopular opinion but I'm all for progress that may eventually lead to W3C's complete irrelevance. I've talked with folks at the WHATWG before, _Anyone_ can provide input and work with them. With the W3C it's, what, like $30k for the cheapest option and that barely gets you in the door. The W3C is too expensive to ever let small businesses or individuals have impact.

I'd love to see more groups like the WHATWG specifically for this reason.

> OK, let's just be super conservative and say only 50% of Robinhood's accounts are funded

I mean, we're all just guessing here but 50% seems _super generous_ to me. It's really easy to sign up for a Robinhood account. I'd love to know what the real numbers are :)

I don't know why I never thought to look for more completions for git. This is a great tip!

Reddit doesn't actually store the history of your edits, only that you edited it (which is why, when you scrub reddit history, people recommend editing it because then your posting is gone except for say a backup). Facebook, however, allows you to see the history of posts so if someone edits it you can see what they originally posted.

I don't think editing a Facebook post first would have the desired effect.

I guess whoever buys up that aspect of Tesla when the shareholders sell it to pay them and the company's debts off.

If someone does it I would imagine they would charge for it. Considering Tesla is considered a luxury brand there would probably be a decent business there.

This is my thinking as well. If you can manufacture cars you can make them cheaper than anyone could ever buy them. So, if I'm a car company, I'm buying someone (or building in house, whichever looks more likely to succeed; hell maybe even both!) who can handle making the cars drive themselves.

Then you have two businesses; you manufacture cars to sell to people and you have a service arm that handles an Uber / Taxi like service with driverless cars.

Right but they haven't yet. Lyft is big in the US and most cities / towns in the US and across the globe have small start-ups doing similar ride sharing.

Does Uber have enough market to hike their prices yet? Will it before it runs out of money? If they're IPOing I feel like they have to think they can do this, I just don't get the how.

Right? This is what I don't understand. Everyone keeps saying the only way they make money is with autonomous cars but they're not even close with being able to do that (probably 5 years, at a minimum, and that's in small select areas).

With such a high burn rate, what are they going to do? From everything I read they're not like Amazon where they can just "turn on" monetization unless they're going to hike up their prices.

So, why would anyone invest in this stock long term? What am I missing?