CoreSet

I’ve always dreamed of having power lunches at the Headliners club in Austin but alas, I’m just a peasant.

No real info, sad that this advertorial is ranking.

We give you unlimited forms but gate on submissions, offering more features / submissions in higher tiers etc.

Reading the blog it doesn't look like there is anything malicious about selling user data or some "you are the product"-type bait and switch, but with one dev and no financial incentive I don't see how he keeps this going (No knock to him, asking unlimited free work is a lot).

Forms seem like sort of a small thing, but you really want them to _work_. Having a whiff on even a contact form can miss a lead and looks bad. And if the service breaks, all of a sudden you have to change a bunch of source code pointing to a defunct service, and hope they have an export function.

(shameless plug for the curious, since some people are suggesting services: https://formcake.com

I write about collecting sci-fi books and pentesting, but I think the real draw is my making-the-sausage articles about my new bootstrapping project - https://formcake.com

I can't tell you how grateful I am. I'm actually a little emotional, thinking of all the people who upvoted this post until it got in front of the people it needed to (and thanks so much Aayush!).

God bless everyone on this site. You saved me.

Though some of these are genuinely new to me, the competitors we'd found in this space before like formkeep and getform had unbearably low form limits or expensive price-per-form schemes.

Also, we have a fun cake graphic :D

It's different from the case he cites, but tracks the general point that there are limits to what we can learn about prehistory / "deep time"

In it, he responds to criticism and ultimately comes to the conclusion that - even if no trace of humanity is left (no civilization, tools, etc) in "deep time" - the biosphere itself has been changed by humanity, and that gives the concept of the Anthroprocene validity.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/10/anthropo...

I sort of go back and forth on the point though. I also think monopolies enable and contribute to abuse - but I worry that the multipolar order would just breed new battle grounds for the various contenders to establish supremacy. On the one hand, you can get the space race (woo, the moon!), on the other hand, you can get the arms race (boo and/or complicated yay, nuclear weapons!).

China being bad doesn't excuse the U.S, the U.S. being bad doesn't excuse China. But somehow, somewhere, in the rhetoric of HN (and let's face it, the internet) there's this idea that only the morally unimpeachable can criticize something. But in reality that just gives the worst actors carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't break some record or set a new standard for terribleness.

We're in a moral race to the bottom, and it doesn't help to say "because so-and-so did it." That just digs us deeper

But what irks me is the "what-aboutism." If Texas executes handicap people, that's awful. But it makes China harvesting organs OK? The U.S. has a horrible track record in Latin America and (frankly) around the world, so China gets some "slack" in how many human rights activists or lawyers it jails each year?

I understand I'm responding to a larger idea and not your comment specifically but... your exact line of argument is used to justify basically everything China (and Russia, and a lot of people incidentally) does that is condemned by the international community

"So-and-so does it? Wake up you fucking sheep" is basically the locked-and-loaded phrase you can use to sound important and win any argument anytime, anywhere, and I think the tendency to fall back on that idea on HN hurts the community.

Of course, you could reply to this comment with some gross injustice, and I could counter. But I'm generally curious. And if you do believe that that U.S. and China are the same, I guess my next question, because arguments seem to lead this way - how do you feel about what-aboutism?

The detailed analysis of how this woman who wants to hold on to a piece of sentimental property is actually mistaken, is destroying the neighborhood, is willfully naive for not exploiting her position to make as much money as possible, etc, etc is predictable but tiring.

Fears about about "cash being the sole nexus between human beings" seem pretty realized on HN. It's as if no one - or at the very least the VC crowd - accepts that anyone could be doing anything _other_ than living their life in pursuit of profit.

And if they are, they're ignorant, naive - even selfish - for not aligning their intent with a profit motive.

I used the RNN to train a George RR Martin-sounding Twitter account. Really fun for a while - and drove home the "Unreasonable Effectiveness" part.

Did the topics of your books diverge significantly? One thing I'm balancing is moving out of security and into other areas.

My real, secret, ultimate goal would be to break into general interest nonfiction, which is of course completely different, but I'm content for now just moving on to other technical topics.

If you're not prepared to offer money, connections, collaboration, or anything of value, it sounds like you just want someone to validate your idea for free.

Beg them, I guess?

Attractive site.

I applaud you for having a career where you never worked in a dehumanizing, humiliating bureaucracy, but knowledge workers are some of the most economically insulated people on the planet. Looking at your career in tech and extrapolating it to "Gee, why don't poor people get a new 'tude" is a simplistic as it is noxious.

I took this video as being an investigation of that very possibility.