bfgoodrich

The original discussion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the Casey individual approaches it. At all. And yes it is simple. If your basic text terminal gets 30 FPS on modern hardware (or worse), you have started with a bad foundation. That is just gross.

The NYT commentary is a bit hilarious as you see that claim on here daily, repeatedly.

Hot takes like yours are what make HN a hilarious joke to the rest of the world. Embarrassing.

Any framing that posits that Google is benevolently "sending traffic" betrays that it should be discarded at the outset. Google (like Facebook and most other "make money on your content" empires) desperately tries to send as little traffic as possible to anyone, which is why they have AMP, scrape content and provide a dubious "expert engine", and provided a news dashboard where they summarized every news site.

I see this same ludicrous argument made re: Facebook. When Facebook temporarily blocked news, downloads of news site apps rose dramatically. It turns out that they weren't helpful whatsoever to anyone. They are a desperate suckerfish just trying to live off of the creation of other people.

In a discussion once about viral diseases there was a discussion about RNA versus DNA viruses, so I searched up various viruses included HIV and Herpes, reading about how DNA viruses hide in the body. Now on Facebook my ads are 50% HIV/AIDS medications.

I bought a soundbar at Best Buy, so the other 50% of the ads are bizarre Best Buy soundbars, primarily the exactly model I already bought. To make it doubly detrimental for Best Buy, I occasionally click the ad to see if the price has changed.

The myth about the useful, relevant ads seems like it doesn't share a lot with reality. While my example is an anecdote, can anyone seriously saying that ads have actually been useful or relevant? When I'm not blocking them they seem to overwhelmingly be things I've already bought and services I already use.

The ad industry seems to be overwhelmingly a lie that we've all bought into. The personalized ad industry seems like a grotesque abuse under a promise that it never actually delivers.

On HNs it is normal to denigrate the "MSM" while cheering on some blogger and his completely unsubstantiated claims. Attacks on the press, because there's a strong Trump contingent here that have an issue with reality and fact having an "anti-Trump bias", are cheered on.

It isn't surprising at all.

Far inferior becomes....actually superior in many cases, even at SIMD.

The M1 has 128-bit NEON SIMD, and given its decode pipeline and cache efficiency it seems more likely to actually benefit entirely from it. AVX on Intel devices is often of limited value because it's either memory starved or gets throttled (many SKUs throttle once you start using AVX).

I've had cases where vectorizing ongoing sequential processing in the most optimal fashion available barely gave a single digital percentage increase. 9 times out of 10 it's snake oil.

But regardless, if there's an example that would make the M1 look bad, do it.

This is like complaining that the microwave at Best Buy doesn't have a Europlug because you're in Italy and that's what you use. Great, but not important to the actual buyer of the microwave in Milwaukee.

No, there was no chance you were ever buying this headset. You may see it as legitimizing your grievances, but I don't think any reasonable person actually buys that.

You, 20 days ago, regarding Apple - "Don't buy their shit. Period."

Of the actual people who would buy this, I'd wager that 99%+ have iPhones. Being able to charge the headset with the same cable you use to charge your phone seems pretty obvious.

The guy I replied to 20 days ago here on HN, talking about Apple: "Don't buy their shit. Period."

No, they were never going to buy this headset. They are not the target market. What they demand would actually be detrimental to the target market.

Of the actual target market, the majority will have no problem with it needing a lightning cable. Their iPhones use lightning. Any iPad but the newest use lightning. The AppleTV remote uses lightning. The Magic Keyboard and the Magic Mouse use lightning. It just seems to be something that a person who would have no interest in this device would see as a problem (in the same way that people who don't use the Magic Mouse are absolute certain that the charger port on the bottom is an egregious deadly fault, while actual users just enjoy a fantastic mouse and it's an utter non-issue. It's why Apple should never listen to these people).

Regardless, this complaint is pretty spurious. The device is clearly marketed to iPhone/iPad users, who carry a USB to Lightning cable with them as a matter of normative standards.

People just like bitching sometimes.

But your comment seems like it might be contrived to begin with. This headset only really makes sense for iPhone users. That is the target. Those people are already carrying using lightning cables in their life. Pretty much anyone in the Apple ecosystem has to charge a multitude of things with lightning still.

Whatever you hope the position of Apple is doesn't correlate with reality.

Aside: Ferrari has between 0.01% - 0.1% marketshare in a given year in the richest countries, and that is your example why Apple -- at 20% or so in most of the world's economies -- is irrelevant. That is some perilously embarrassing nonsense. Hyundai, in contrast, has 7% marketshare in the US and is considered a pretty big player.

Further I don't think you understand what "significant" marketshare is. Even 10% marketshare is significant, where the actions of that market player is impactful. But Apple is pushing way above that almost everywhere.

We are talking about the most valuable company in the world, and the M1 release was covered enthusiastically the world over. The notion that it's US-only is absolutely preposterous.

Apple is a significant player in mobile in the entirety of the West. Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands. And it's PC saturation is virtually the same in Canada and Europe as the US. Even in European media it is incredibly common to see Apple devices (phones and PCs) as the placeholders.

Apple even has 20% of the mobile marketshare in China. That's incredible. It has 60%+ in Japan.

The corporation buying a fleet of low-end PCs for seat warmers aren't going to buy Apple (nor are they buying Surface Pros. They're buying the junkiest HP or Dell they can get). But there are as many "artsy" people, or people who care about the experience, in other rich countries as well.

It's telling that one of the most common, and earliest, comments to justify a TikTok ban is "well China banned/blocked XXXX". It is similar to this administration repeatedly justifying super-spreader events by citing looters. Is that really the standard you are striving towards?

"Would you feel different if TikTok were software of Russian origin?"

No, I wouldn't at all. That is absurd. Russia actually has a fairly healthy software industry, including many games and even security tools like Kaspersky.

Find actual abuses by the application or its data and then there are credible arguments. Simply alluding to some notion of evil-by-association is a dangerous game for the US to play given PRISM, FISA warrants, etc.

And let's be real -- you're typing on your made in China computer full of components made in China, your data traversing made in china routers and relays, etc. This never had anything to do with any imagined security risk, and had to do with the corrupt manchild targeting a platform for carrying content unfavorable to him. It is just another demonstration that the US doesn't "stand for" much [1].

[1] - The only saving grace right now is effectively the so called "Deep State". The career judges and civil servants who don't twist every norm and rule and precedent because of this corrupt tinpot dictator and his pathetic army of deplorables. They may not be enough, though.

The work product of teams chasing each of these innovations is virtually unchanged, decade over decade. Which is exactly why you see a circular procession of revolutions, each displacing the last to the dustbin of history, while empirically offering nothing unique.

Clearly there are a lot of people that empathize with it. There is nothing "baseless" about that, however uncomfortable some find it.

Bizarre that you claimed that my comment was an "ad hominem", when your own reply included multiple personal attacks and mine included none. They (you?) literally tried to discount my comment by contriving a strawman that if this application and management of CSS is trivial, therefore I'm saying that design is trivial. That is absurd, and is completely orthogonal.

I had no idea my comment would make so many so insecure.

Or, and maybe this is just my old man dementia talking, millions of extremely low-skill developers have flooded into the market, primarily building "web apps". An endless procession of "make trivial stuff easy for really incompetent developers" solutions appear to pander to them -- and their brother-in-arms "make trivial stuff seem complex and engineer-ee" solutions -- and this is a group that finds each of these variations on an obsolete theme revolutionary.

Humorous that multiple people have been triggered by the notepad comment. Yet...many extremely rich pages and apps have been built in exactly such a manner! That this is seen as outlandish is pretty telling.

If you can't separate design from Yet Another Trivial Variation on a Theme, that's a you problem. Trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.

Since then I directed development on a number of absurdly rich and powerful platforms across telecom and the financial world. We were leading the respective industries when everyone was pushing Java, Flash, XAML/WinForms, etc at various junctures (each coming and faltering). We had a better than native mobile "app" using web tech.

I was one of the early and vigorous public proponents of SVG.

These applications, going back up to two decades ago, demolish the overwhelming bulk of web apps people are working on today in design complexity, actual functionality, and so on.

Yeah, I have a pretty good notion about "modern web technology", and often it feels like farce. Like it's a parody and I'm left wondering if I should say something because I missed the joke. The amazing self-congratulatory praise about, again, trivial nonsense just boggles.

I said neither of these and am not interested in debating a strawman.

I apologize to the web community at large for the snarky, dismissive tone, but seriously it just seems extraordinary how it's just an endless march of new approaches and new silver bullets to do absolutely trivial things. Arguments about maintainability or extensibility fall by the wayside when that trend du jour is discarded next month because now it's being rebuilt on Backwind on the Spry framework using the TypelessScript stack, etc.

I am absolutely in awe at the advancement in virtually every other area of technology, almost all of it worth every bit of attention and learning. Where we are building enormous, hugely complex projects. Then we have the web where after countless "toss it all and throw it all away" cycles, the community is heralding this. This is what has, to quote the linked article, " taken the frontend world by storm".