bryans

You're now making inflammatory claims about how you understand statistics better than NYU scientists and professors. Yet, all you've actually done is invent some numbers in your head and call them statistics, while also redefining bias. You even conveniently left out the rest of the researchers' quote which shows your premise is utter nonsense:

"If this is extractable to the general population, approximately 2.75 million (2.13-3.38 million) Americans may suffer annually from a phenomenon similar to CHS."

There are approximately 35,000,000 regular smokers. 2.75m / 35m is 7.8%.

> Also, the dataset is likely biased because it consists of patients already presenting to the ER.

That's not how bias works. In fact, you're introducing your own concocted bias, because you've limited the dataset to the ER visits and not the population. Your 2.3% number only represents the number of undiagnosed vomiting cases that could be attributed to CHS, which has no relevance to the number of smokers who experience vomiting. You don't have any understanding of statistics.

> These conditions are very broad and symptoms of CHS match closely the symptoms of regular overdose, and most of the relief methods are also directly applicable to regular overdoses.

You're now suggesting that these situations aren't actually marjiuana-related at all, but instead some other drug overdose that the ER staff totally missed. So, not only do you purport to understand statistics better than everyone else, but your medical expertise apparently surpasses that of ER doctors. Your trolling is outrageous.

Your commentary isn't appropriate for HN, isn't based on any actual knowledge of the subject, and the very premise is based on information you made up in your head. CHS isn't rare and doesn't require extreme dosage, and most people don't get diagnosed for years, if ever.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29327809/

Much like your original comment and despite having zero knowledge of the subject, you are arrogantly stringing together random words in an attempt to belittle people for being "stupid or naive." CHS is not rare, nor does it require extreme dosage. It affects approximately 7% of smokers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29327809/

You don't have any understanding of what CHS is or how it works, so it's entirely inappropriate for you to be making claims about how anyone who suffers from it must be "stupid or naive." From behaviors, to how strains work, to how people get sick, absolutely none of what you said has any foundation in reality.

Inhalation force or speed are not relevant factors. The amount of vapor produced is entirely based on heat transfer and the properties of the oil. You don't even need to be inhaling for the device to produce vapor, but when you finally do, it's the same amount as if you were inhaling the whole time -- though the vapor will taste "scorched" after letting it sit in the chamber over multiple seconds of heating.

Despite the circumstances, it was technically my own decision to spend that money, so I wouldn't have been able to claim the hotel. I would have been limited to claiming the $4,500 plus partial attorney fees. But not only would it have cost roughly $4,000 to make that happen, the attorney warned me there's a chance I could actually lose due to Airbnb's solidly anti-consumer user agreement.

I disputed it, but after three months of waiting, the bank decided there's nothing they can do because Airbnb's position is protected by the user agreement and CA law. It was a severely disappointing moment.

I don't know anyone who trusts Airbnb anymore, whether host or visitor. Several years ago I booked a week in SF at what looked like a very nice place. Naturally, the reality didn't remotely match the photos -- everything was broken, in tatters, filthy and it reeked of mold. Airbnb's resolution process was to have me wait several hours for someone to come and re-wash all of the bedding, but everything still smelled like mold afterward. This cleaning person actually told me the owner is aware that everything in the place is filthy, but refuses to change anything.

Unfortunately, Airbnb wasn't satisfied with my story because I couldn't prove that it smelled like mold -- yes, they actually wanted me to prove the presence of mold over email. They also weren't satisfied with the cleaning person's story, or the dozen photos I sent of the place being in shambles. They not only refused to help me find another place, but refused to refund me, as well. They didn't just steal $4,500, they forced me to spend my entire first day finding other lodging at premium last-minute prices during Salesforce Week.

My choices were to cancel the whole trip and head home, or spend another $6,500 at the damn W, of all places. I decided to stay thinking it would end up only being an extra $2,000 after the Airbnb refund, which was a mistake, because they never refunded me and brazenly told me to bring them to small claims court. But after travel expenses and attorney fees, I would have only ended up getting a few hundred dollars back.

So, Airbnb effectively screwed me out of $11,000 and their representatives seemed genuinely happy about doing it. I honestly don't recall a single apology from anyone at any point.

Every organization producing dictionaries includes other fruits as part of the definition for wine. Wine was originally made from all types of fruits, and grapes became the most ubiquitous because of preference for taste. That doesn't make other fruit wines not wine, it just means we most commonly associate the category of fermented fruit drinks with grapes, as that is what has been most commonly available for a very long time.

https://www.thoughtco.com/wine-origins-archaeology-and-histo...

What you're describing isn't very realistic, since nobody would willingly choose the most expensive option(s) for transfer -- and CDNs aren't even particularly useful for live video, as the minimal latency increase of using a single location is easily counteracted with larger buffers, all of which is already baked in to the protocols.

Here's some counterpoint math including revenue, using even higher bitrates across a couple cheap load-balanced 4Gbps VPSs. For simplicity, I'll use a single average stream.

Transfer: 300 avg. viewers * 6 hours * 5mbps = 4TB @ $0.01/GB = $40

Revenue: 5,000 total views * 0.01 conversion * ($5 avg. contribution - processing) = $228

That's a $188 margin self-hosted versus approximately $120 via Twitch mechanisms. Presuming 5 streams per week, Twitch is taking a $17,000/year commission. Twitch does provide some other functionality and very minimal discovery, but if you already have a dedicated audience, then self-hosting absolutely makes sense for any sized streamer, especially considering that you're not limited to streaming to only one platform.

If you start with what we already know, natural responsiveness is fairly straight-forward. There are still phones out there running 320px. There are desktops running 6-8K. There are people using side-by-side windows at 4K, making each window slightly less than 1080p. And we know the same page needs to work on all of those and everything in between. With just those four pieces of information and a little logic, you can make confident decisions about your layout's behavior at different breakpoints.

With that in mind, the same is true now as it has been for almost 20 years. The layout should be made of 320px columns growable to 400px, while components occupy one or more columns. If everything else is based on that foundation, it will be rare to run into special cases. Whereas the current breakpoints based around 768 and 1024 are actively working against you by creating common dead zones that you need to adjust for.

You can see the 1025-1079 dead zone in action by visiting most websites in 4K side-by-side, causing a horizontal scroll as the content overflows. That includes major sites from Google, Meta and others who really ought to know better. Since almost all of my browsing is done side-by-side, I've resolved to reducing the default browser zoom to 90%, which eliminates the horizontal overflow on most of these sites.

There's objectively nothing fun about waiting for something which you have no control over and doesn't benefit your life in any conceivable way. You will never find a single human on their deathbed fondly reminiscing about all the checkbox animations they watched. There's more to life than whimsical UI animations.

Let's say you have a todo app with a million users checking an average of five boxes per day. Currently, you have a simple color shift animation which lasts 200ms and doesn't prevent the user from interacting with other elements. Then a designer suggests a fancy animation popover which takes 3s and blocks interaction, because they read some article about gamification and how it'll increase user engagement.

Disregarding that your app is about providing a specific function and user engagement metrics are meaningless, you implement the fancy animation. Your users are now collectively spending 1,400,000 hours per year waiting for an animation to finish.

Please don't be that person. Your users' time is more valuable than your desire for UI whimsy.

Both articles contain the same details. The OP mentions Mexico's drought in the first paragraph.

The only information provided by the company was that there is a chili shortage and that production will resume at some point, with new orders being fulfilled after September. This post attempts to explain a little about the company's supply chain and consumer demand, by interviewing someone who has somewhat intimate knowledge of it. So, it is actually high effort speculation, which is all they could do given the available information.

The chilis used to make Sriracha are red jalapenos, which are regular jalapenos left on the vine to mature.

I'm not sure if it qualifies as useful, but a while back I hacked together a web push notifications site[1] for RPAN live streamers after Reddit ripped away in-site notifications. It didn't gain traction because the admins/mods banned and forbade me from speaking about it, and because I couldn't offer iOS notifications, but ~1,000 people still use it to get ~25,000 notifications every day.

For the first several months, I was getting a message or email every day asking when iOS web push was coming, and the timing couldn't be more perfect that Reddit just effectively shut down their live streaming the same day that Apple finally enabled push.

[1] https://rpan.me/live

An article from MIT:TR in the early 2000s always stuck with me as an example of how intricate and interconnected genes really are. Researchers using fruit flies found one born with white eyes, and they narrowed the mutation to a specific gene. They were able to modify it in vivo to reliably produce white eyes, but the change had an unexpected second outcome, which was that white-eyed males would only attempt to mate with other males.

Years later, there was a group who cited that fruit fly paper when they proposed the same methodology to control mosquito populations, but I'm not sure if they ever recreated the male preference. The mosquito gene editing did pan out, but the method is different in that it doesn't allow females to survive, while males will go on to mate with other non-edited populations and spread the female-killing gene.

This is exactly the situation I emailed you about, dang. Given that freediver actually broke twice as many guidelines -- his most recent comment alone broke five -- and used HN as a platform to repeatedly slander a competitor, it doesn't seem appropriate to be singling me out. You are giving the instigator(s) a free pass on everything, while treating those who respond to those instigations as "destroyers" of the site. Help me understand why this is the case?

Edit: Just got your email. I will continue the conversation there.

> You are putting words in my mouth

Please quote me, because I never put any words in your mouth, and accusing me of doing so is brazenly false and escalatory.

> and starting to get personal at the same time.

Bringing attention to the hypocrisy of your baseless claims is not a personal attack, particularly when the only question raised was your own company's status and publicly stated philosophy about the industry being directly discussed. You are not a victim in this situation.

> My conclusion was that the idea of profit share sounds good on paper but the math does not check.

This is the exact claim that you just accused me of "putting in your mouth," so you're doubling down on your completely faulty analysis, while also claiming I've somehow antagonized you into doing so.

> If Kagi had $300M /year extra, and shared that money with 10M websites, that would be $30 /year or less than $3/month to a website owner. In my opinion that is not how you make impact

As folks in this thread have explained to you multiple times, there is no such thing as an even distribution of traffic. In reality, the content creators who currently get very little search traffic won't be affected by this additional revenue source, but they aren't expecting to and nobody is claiming that they will. Whereas a content creator who does receive a lot of search traffic would see an increase of revenue that is significant relative to their overall income.

You are still trying to push these fundamentally absurd notions that all content creators have the same sized audiences and that the search engine should be responsible for their baseline revenue -- and if the company doesn't meet those literally impossible requirements that no other business in the world would ever be held to, then the concept is somehow inherently flawed and won't have any relevant impact.

> and the cost of distributing this money would be more than what is being distributed.

You're inventing problems that don't exist. The advertising and content industries have utilized minimum payouts for decades. The claims process could be as simple as a site verification code, which has also been used for decades by thousands of companies.

> It is a terrible idea. Now what can make impact is you take $300M and invest in something that can scale.

This explains everything about your commentary, and I find it to be anti-social at its very core. You appear to be plainly declaring that money can only be impactful when invested in large businesses that "scale" -- scale at what, nobody knows, but apparently scaling is inherently beneficial to society in some way -- and that supporting small businesses is a "terrible idea." That is illogical, harmful and completely unjustifiable.

> In any case my math was meant to be a critique of the proposed model, not any particular product, and I still stand by that analysis.

Except that your conclusion was to declare that search ad revenue is "not much" money, which is both plainly false and extremely strange for you to say, given that the entire premise of your own search engine is to take ad revenue out of the equation because the company profits and personal costs of ads to the end user are too high. So, I'm really not sure why you would stand behind an analysis that hundreds of millions of dollars is an "unviable" and irrelevant amount of revenue.

When Kagi is bringing in $365M/year, feel free to make all the declarations you want about $328M being "not much." Until then, you're being hypercritical for no apparent reason -- with the results being identical to malice.

I made my other comment about the disparaging qualities of your commentary, but I just wanted to point out that the numbers you're discussing are actually good for content creators. Incredibly good, actually.

Presuming your DDG example of 100M/day @ $0.01, that would be $328M/year paid out to creators. Bandcamp currently pays out ~$75M annually, and nobody is declaring them "unviable." So, I can't imagine why you consider this amount to be "not much," particularly when it would be additional revenue for creators which is typically 100% absorbed by the search provider.

For the record, freediver deceptively misquoted the blog post, and Ahrefs never claimed that those would be the revenue amounts -- they weren't even talking about their own company.

Removing the context[1] from that quote feels disingenuous, at best, and purporting that they even made any claims about their product is approaching libel. The 2019 personal blog post you're referring to is a general (albeit flawed) analysis of how a Google profit share might work for the top content creators based on guesstimated information from YouTube revenues. They were very clear about all of this and plainly stated multiple times that they have no idea if their analyses are accurate, and that it's all effectively an experiment.

Here is the actual portion from that post:

"YouTube’s revenue [...] can approximate that top-earners receive $0.0015 for every one view. Considering how much more ad revenue Google SEPR[sic] clicks generate in comparison to YouTube views, a Google profit-share model could generate significantly higher returns for top content creators. Based on a quick analysis, serving one search could pay an average rate from $0.05 to $0.25 in the US. Say Anne from Kentucky helps 4,000 people learn how to build container gardens via her Wordpress blog every month. She would receive $1,000 monthly from the search engine in return."

Given the context, you're putting many words in their mouth. It wasn't a product announcement, the product itself didn't even exist yet, they didn't actually claim a $0.25/query profit or even make any claims at all, they never made any mention whatsoever about being a substantial revenue source for "average" creators (who don't make substantial revenue to begin with), and they weren't even talking about their own product.

So, again, you're holding them to an impossible standard of revenue to meet your arbitrary and unreasonable qualifications of being "impactful." It comes across as ethical posturing, and shaming someone for napkin math about a different company's offering in an old "I have an idea" post just doesn't seem appropriate from a competitor in the space. I can only presume that you wouldn't be a fan of people nitpicking quotes from your old posts, so I'm not sure why you're doing it to someone else.

[1] https://medium.com/swlh/investor-money-vs-public-interest-di...

Edit: In fact, the other person who replied to your comment just proved that what you're doing is completely irresponsible and libelous. You're sowing the idea that those two sentences were in reference to the company's actual offering, which is completely false, but you're actively convincing people otherwise.

Edit: Here's a screenshot[2] of your unedited comment, since you decided to remove false information and things that I referenced.

[2] https://i.imgur.com/hcJJNXJ.png

Why would it be a search engine's role to provide the entirety of every creators' livable wage? That would obviously be impossible for many reasons, and I don't see Yep making any claims about being a primary (or even significant) revenue source. Instead, they're proposing that the value of search comes from the end content, not the results page. The creator revenue stemming from that is inherently the appropriate amount.

Inciting the notion that they're individually responsible for the whole of content creators' income only encourages more ads or even nefarious behavior -- which is completely antithetical to your own company's philosophy, so it's not clear why you're so publicly holding a competitor to a different standard.

I realize that your primary target is major venues, but do you have any plans for expanding to 200-500 cap venues? A management solution is desperately needed in that space!

> If you haven't noticed that with the several hundred live streamers you've consulted with then it seems by definition the streamers you interact with do not have the Super Fans being discussed [...] At the same time it doesn't mean these types of streamers and fans don't exist just because you don't work with them

I'm trying to take your word that you don't mean to disparage, but I don't see another interpretation for what you've said. You suggested that I'm not aware of basic Twitch functionality (when I clearly am), then claimed that I must not have knowledge of the subject because the streamers I work with "by definition" don't have super fans (even though they clearly do), then claimed I said super fans don't even exist (though I never so much as remotely hinted it), then repeated the claim that I don't work with anyone who has super fans (even after explicitly telling you they do).

All of those things (and some that I left out) are disparaging, and the entire premise of your commentary has been that your perspective as a viewer can be applied to the entirety of the content creation industry as an absolute and indisputable fact, but that my perspective as a viewer, streamer and consultant strictly applies to a unique subset of streamers whom I've personally worked with -- because apparently I exclusively find the extremely rare streamers and whales who aren't part of "the vast majority" involved in an "exploitative" industrial complex, even though that would be a statistical impossibility. So, when you say "nothing I've talked to is about my personal experience vs your professional experience," that's patently untrue. It's the basis for everything you've said.

> Simply having a 100 gift sub button in the UI, well hidden and never mentioned otherwise, is still extremely hard to justify as anything but exploitative.

At the end of the day, you're attempting to perpetuate the completely false notion that "the vast majority" of large donors are "dysfunctional" and being "exploited." You witness people donate large amounts and for some reason automatically assume exploitation, but you have no actual evidence or justification for that assumption other than it seeming like a lot of money to you, personally. Unless you're a professional psychologist who analyzed these people, you don't get to declare that "the vast majority" of any population are mentally unwell or being exploited -- especially when your only knowledge of the situation is that you saw strangers push buttons on a website. That's not situational knowledge of anything.

In reality, there are magnitudes more large donors who contribute to be supportive and out of appreciation for the streamers time and talents. Some fans will spend 100+ hours per month watching a particular streamer, so if they can afford to donate $1,000, that works out to paying $10/hr for entertainment, which is less than many hobbies. Yet, I don't see you making claims that people who spend lots of money on other forms of entertainment are exploited -- just this particular industry, and for reasons you haven't actually articulated.

And that's all still ignoring the fact that your perceived observations do not apply to the content creation industry as a whole, or even the majority of it. When I tell you that what you're describing can't be applied to the nearly 1,000 whales I've personally communicated with over the past few years, it makes no sense for you to double down on a blanket generalization that "the vast majority" of streamers are exploitative and large donors are being exploited, because even basic math doesn't back your argument.

> On the contrary these things are extremely visible and advertised.

You listed the basic concept of subscriptions and rewards as evidence for nefarious activity and exploitation. That's rather silly, and I'm not going to engage with it.

> Also the conversation was never about all "donors", from the beginning it was about "the vast majority of Super Fans are not buying courses or supporting the development of content". Disagree or not with the statement it never made claims every single

Please stop making pedantic nitpicks. I've literally quoted "the vast majority" a dozen times in these comments, and you're choosing to pick a single instance where I generally referred to them as donors for the sake of brevity within a long sentence, which itself is inside a paragraph specifically about super fans and even started with the words "super fans." You know exactly what I was referencing, and that you continue to turn these false nitpicks into full arguments is both exhausting and starting to resemble gaslighting.

> you haven't noticed [...] the streamers you interact with do not have [...] Please don't put quotation marks around words and claims which were not said.

You're pedantically nitpicking again, when you clearly understood that I was paraphrasing to highlight the obvious inflammatory intent behind your blatantly disparaging remarks. You're concocting confrontation. You even just edited your comment to include more disparaging commentary and suggestions that I'm ignorant of the existence of a group of people. All you did (before editing your comment) is claim that I don't know things because your extremely limited personal anecdotes somehow outweigh my professional experience, which is the definition of inflammatory behavior.

> Which is core to the arguments and the error major not minor. Companies like Twitch have multiple high-cost options

The core argument made by the OC was that "the vast majority of super fans" are "socially dysfunctional" and "companies pushing this have all the data and know exactly what's going on, but market to this demographic anyway." The suggestion here is that these companies are nefariously encouraging people to donate higher amounts. When in reality, the functionality to gift groups of subs isn't even visible by default on Twitch and the user needs to go out of their way to switch to the gift subs tab, before consciously deciding to click at the bottom of the list of amounts, which also requires scrolling on some mobile screen sizes before you can even see the higher amounts.

So, no, the higher-cost items are, in fact, not "pushed" or "marketed" as the OC or you suggest, which makes your entire argument a nitpick. All you did was mention that a thing existed, without providing any context or evidence as to how it's exploitative or how it could even be considered marketing. Twitch even makes a point in the site's verbiage of labeling any subs larger than $5 as "going above and beyond," which makes clear that even moderate amounts are more than is expected of the user. Again, the existence of functionality does not constitute nefarious behavior -- it doesn't even qualify as "marketing," and it definitely doesn't qualify as "exploiting dysfunctional users."

> Super Fans donate hundreds of dollars per action to streamers who are sometimes making millions per year. This is not the "I'm tier 3 for my favorite streamer so they can stay full time" crowd it's the "I'm top bit donator/sub gifter on a top channel" crowd. I consider myself part of the former hobby/support group but I can't see any way to construe the latter group as part of the same hobby either. I'm open to hearing ways that whale segment could be though if you'd be willing to expound

Super fans are not exclusive to million dollar streamers, so you're using a rare example to make generalizations which are not reflective of the overall industry or culture. The existence of a personality type which seeks attention by donating large amounts to see themselves on a leaderboard where thousands (or tens of thousands) of people are watching, does not magically mean that applies to all donors and, in fact, applies to so few donors that your argument really has no foundation.

For one of thousands of examples I could provide, a relatively small streamer I worked with has an average viewership of less than 150 per stream. Yet, roughly 20% of their regular viewers contribute more than $100/mo, with several over $500/mo, and exactly zero of them are doing it for attention -- a fact, given that there is no leaderboard and they receive no acknowledgement verbally or via overlays. In reality, most large contributors prefer to do so anonymously anyway, and streamers typically make a point of communicating with those supporters to ensure that larger donations aren't risking their financial well-being.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Super Chats are limited to $500 per user per day, so the parent comment's claim of seeing individual $1,000+ Super Chats was false regardless of the total donations for a stream. Furthermore, people subverting the platform's limit does not magically make the company "nefariously marketing" and "taking advantage" of people. In fact, you're describing the opposite of nefarious, as the daily cap is clearly meant to slow the rate of individual contributions.

Making an option available isn't the same as nefarious marketing and intentional exploitation, which is the entirely false claim being made by the OC. You're also acting incredibly inflammatory by suggesting that I am "ignorant of functionality" and "couldn't possibly work with streamers at that level." Unfortunately for your claim, I've consulted with several of Twitch's top 100 music streamers and have years of direct experience with every type of fan, super and otherwise. The OC's claims are nonsense, and your pedantic nitpicking isn't appropriate or applicable.