bryans

Surely this is a consequence of management and corporate ideology, rather than a natural outcome of having some arbitrary number of devs in a room. A good project manager doesn't allow great ideas to die on the vine unless there is pressure to do so, and that pressure is not coming from the team or customers -- it's coming from the top of the company.

For all of his and Apple's faults, Jobs aggressively fostered a culture of "good is the enemy of perfect," which placed the focus on polished features instead of the dull hum of incremental development. And that bucking of homogenization is what led to such a rabid base of loyalists, as consumers tuned in to that momentum of (albeit perceived) innovation.

Google, on the other hand, has never really had a fan base to speak of, and the few remaining loyalists are rapidly disappearing. I genuinely have never met a consumer or dev who believes Google is at the bleeding edge of any feature. That is wholly reflective of Page and Brin's ideologies, who fostered a culture of "over-engineer, refactor and ship incomplete," which is exactly what you're describing. Angular, for example, is the perfect representation of the Page/Brin ideology, and that's why nobody uses it.

It's ironic to be declaring the GP as dismissive while you're flippantly dismissing the work of everyone involved with F@H. You're conveniently ignoring the incentive of expanding our understanding of biology, which has very real applications and results[1] that benefit the entire world for the rest of human existence, instead of benefiting a single participant in the short term.

[1] https://www.hpcwire.com/2020/10/14/how-foldinghome-identifie...

I'm definitely an edge case for music. I've been obsessed with metal since the mid-90s, and have downloaded quite literally every release. Unfortunately, the streaming services don't seem to care much about having a complete (or even particularly good) catalog of metal, so some of my favorite bands and albums don't exist on those platforms. This is made worse due to a significant portion of metal bands being off the grid, with little-to-zero web presence outside of a Metal Archives[1] listing.

This obsession has led to developing a system for filtering releases into lists of albums that I actually enjoy, so I don't miss anything good. I download 100% of releases and throw all of them into Winamp, then play the second track -- there are a lot of atmospheric intro tracks in metal. If the first 1s doesn't grab me, I skip to about 0:30 and give it another 2-3s. If nothing grabs my attention or it's a sub-genre that I'm not interested in, the album gets removed from the playlist.

Anything remaining at the end gets a full track 2 play, and if the whole song meets my approval, I'll listen to the whole album. If the album is something I'd listen to more than a few times, it goes on the permanent playlist -- currently at ~450 albums and another ~500 random tracks.

[1] https://www.metal-archives.com/

As a 5TB MP3 hoarder myself (along with ~50GB/day of movie/TV pirating), I was curious as to how much content 30TB actually is, so I checked the average file size for my last 300 downloads of mostly 1080p shows and 2160p movies. They averaged 3GB, so that's roughly 10,000 pieces of long form video. Presuming an average bitrate of 14Mbps, 30TB is ~4,760 hours.

The average adult watches 3 hours per day. Given the OP's hobby-level interest in collecting the content, we can probably double that to 6 hours per day, which makes for 2.5 years worth of content.

Even though I'm squarely in the 6+ hour category, there are maybe 100 or so favorite movies that I've watched more than once, and once per year I'll re-watch a TV series (this year's revisit was Halt And Catch Fire). But even adding all of that together, we're talking about maybe 500 unique videos over ~20 years.

I can't wrap my head around needing to store 10,000 videos forever for the tiny chance that you might want to watch one that isn't still available through Usenet, private trackers or reasonable paid means.

I simply asked you to copy and paste a single sentence to act as an example representative of your "take," but instead, you're deflecting and acting even more inflammatory. The simple fact is that you didn't read the article, and instead made derogatory comments about someone based on things they didn't say, and that has no place anywhere, much less HN.

You didn't offer a take on what the author said, as evidenced by the fact that the author made zero claims of grandeur or even goodness, and the entire premise of the article wasn't the ideas themselves, but to encourage other people to explore and share their old ideas whether they're good or not.

So in this case, RTFA becomes really important and not some "silly chant." Because instead of reacting to what they actually wrote, you've instead concocted a story about this person in your head, and then attempted to belittle them for it.

I challenge you to quote any line from the article where the author says anything remotely "full of themselves" or "crass." You won't be able to do it, because it doesn't exist, and you're just being shamefully inflammatory for no reason.

> Some people are so full of themselves that they don't even realize how crass they might come across.

An appropriately ironic comment, given that you just arrogantly belittled someone while also accusing them of narcissism, despite the author plainly writing that they don't claim any of the ideas are good. Next time RTFA before spouting inflammatory nonsense.

"I'd rather give my ideas away than let them go to waste. Who knows if they are even good? The hard part is the execution anyway."

The GP made sarcastic commentary about Google keeping and using this community-generated data to empower themselves. Your response was to belittle them and arrogantly claim that Google is releasing the data. You were then shown that Google is only releasing a small (as implied by "some") subset of data publicly, which makes the GP's claim mostly true.

But now for inexplicable reasons, instead of just apologizing to the GP for being rude, you're scrambling to apologize for a corporation whose entire existence is notoriously based around collecting, abusing and selling user data, while also brazenly colluding with all of the other big companies to accomplish that abuse.

And for the record, the "three" datasets you're attempting to nitpick -- again without doing any of your own research, but instead quoting some other comment -- are actually just three partial subsets of the same Open Images[1] dataset, which itself is one of many datasets. So, they've still only released (and intend to release) a small portion of the overall data.

Your only intent was to make someone on the internet feel stupid, when in reality they were mostly correct, and you are still mostly wrong. Your previous comment got flagged to death. Take the hint. Doubling down isn't productive.

[1] https://storage.googleapis.com/openimages/web/index.html

Your aggressive tone is completely inappropriate, especially considering that you are mostly wrong. They have released a single dataset, and specifically state on the site that only some of the data will be open sourced. So, perhaps it is you who should be reading further.

"Google shares some Crowdsource data via open-sourcing, for the benefit of the global research and developer communities. This includes the 400,000 images that we've already released as Open Images Extended, with more sharing to come."

https://crowdsource.google.com/about/how-it-works/

With current technology, I think it would actually be somewhat simple to create an ASMR channel, for example, with generated content that only shows realistic hands manipulating objects, accompanied by a bot that variably responds to comments in a method which conveys gratitude, and invites everyone to a Discord where the bot also maintains sporadic and jovial communication. Instant community, and none would be the wiser.

> Does this mean someday humans will stop creating, that we’ll let the machines take over? I don’t think so, I think TikTok shows us humans crave to create as much as consume.

I think this boils down to a desire for connection, rather than creation, and is part of a decade-long consumer shift toward seeking individual relationships and bucking corporate brands. TikTok, Twitch and YouTube are the primary channels for this, and it's on display 24/7. There are millions of people throwing mountains of money at individuals, not just for sharing their thoughts or talents, but by creating a genuine connection and community around that content. And that's the reason humans won't stop creating content no matter how great AI gets -- because it was never really about the content to begin with.

However, AI will assuredly become the dominant form of entertainment at some point, as the predictive capabilities alone would allow for flawless content suggestion for any given situation. And that's before the inevitability of generating content indistinguishable from anything Hollywood or Nashville can produce, including online personalities that mimic human behavior well enough to create the same "genuine" connections I mentioned in the first paragraph.

An interesting portion of this is the Restricted API, which limits the number of sites to 10, but allows an unlimited number of requests at the $5/k rate. There doesn't seem to be any restriction on business use, which seems like a good option for paid, ad-free and anonymized code search, since 95% of the desired results are from three sources: GH, SO and Reddit.

I've always had the same mindset, which I think most pre-2000 coders share, and is likely a side effect of needing to develop within limitations. For one of many examples, early video games wouldn't have been possible without meticulously bespoke code, because the hardware limitations required extremely inventive strategies for storing and displaying graphics, compressing text used for dialogue, generating sound, etc. This was just as true for the web, even into the broadband years due to the new limitations of smart phones and mobile networks. But now that the bandwidth is massively available, we've abandoned all of those optimizations.

Though, I think post-2000 it makes more sense to take the opposite approach to optimization. Let the generators do their work, and then edit the file to remove what you don't want. It takes a fraction of the time to cut a couple lines from a generated SVG than it does to create from scratch -- even one as simple as Derek's example.

The almost exclusive focus on exit strategies makes VC advice mostly useless for many concepts, particularly those based around community or specializations. To even have a built-in exit strategy feels like the business plan equivalent of fast fashion, and that mindset is harmful to everyone except founders and investors. It really is absurd that there are so few resources available to startups with modest or long term plans, or those lacking the desire to minmax profit schemes at the expense of their customers.

The USDA has a very different definition for "urban agriculture" than your claim of simply "fields between condos."

"Urban agriculture includes the cultivation, processing and distribution of agricultural products in urban and suburban areas. Community gardens, rooftop farms, hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic facilities, and vertical production are all examples of urban agriculture."

https://www.usda.gov/topics/urban

I think the best option would be an extension that disables autoplay across the board. There are many out there, though all flawed in their own way. The least worst for Chrome seems to be AutoplayStopper.

The research into fasting and the gut biome over the past few/several years has been fascinating, mostly because it all boils down to rather simple mechanisms with hugely beneficial results. I do wish that the media would respect their readers enough to delve into the details, because the "maybe, maybe not" summaries aren't helpful.

To expand on the detail-light article, you're not actually "fasting" until 10-12 hours after you've finished digesting the last thing you ate, at which point you're in the "postabsorptive state." During this period, autophagy breaks down damaged cells and encourages regeneration from healthier ones, resulting in reduced inflammation throughout the body, drastically increased blood glucose control, and measurably reduced risks for a number of diseases and common health issues.

The article discusses the logistics of eating schedules, but it's important to note that when it comes to autophagy, it appears that an hour is an hour. Studies into fasting 3 hours per day for one month (84-90 hours total) have roughly the same results as fasting 3-4 consecutive days in one month (72-96 total hours). So it seems that any amount of fasting you can fit into any given day is going to be beneficial. Sticking to some strict schedule may help some people keep to a routine, but it's not necessary, and may actually be detrimental for folks who feel "failure" in missing schedules or not meeting milestones.

For me, the easiest way to maximize fasting hours and still feel full throughout a day, is to eat between 10am-2pm. If I wake up around 8-9am, that's approximately 6-8 hours of fasting and ~175 hours in a month. And as for the meals, I eat a large salad and then whatever else I want in those four hours. It ends up being about 1,500 calories, and at no point during the evening do I feel hungry or even think about eating. It doesn't need to be complicated, and from the research, I feel confident that I'm getting benefits from however many hours of fasting I manage to get.

It's fascinating that the system is able to generate such precise imagery, yet can't handle words at all -- it can only barely reproduce words you explicitly tell it to. But sometimes it'll adds words when you're really not expecting it, and like you said, it's uncomfortable. Like the worst uncanny valley I've ever experienced. It was so unsettling to see the "four seasons" and "periodic table" that I couldn't stop nervously laughing.

mIRC scripting was/is incredibly underrated, and was used for so much more than chat bots, as well. Among other things made easy, it provided a method of accessing raw sockets that allowed for basic IP spoofing, which was a boon for all sorts of inventive and mischievous behavior.

The unclosed tags were one method, and the other was applying a different formatting to every character. Even one or two messages of maximum length was enough to crash the client.

I think the one of the most interesting and overlooked stories about the AOL era, is how the warez scene used bots and AOL's mail system to host every piece of pirated content for years.

Similar to IRC channels with bots that provided lists of available content and used DCC to transfer compressed files in small chunks -- these were still the days of 9600-56k, so transfers larger than floppies were often doomed to fail -- AOL private rooms would be filled with bots that would respond to requests and send files. The difference being that the AOL bots would email a list of available content, which could be a paginated list across multiple emails, or results for a specific search query. Then you would type another command into the chat to request a specific file or release, and the bot would forward you a series of emails with <1.4MB attachments (the maximum size at the time), already stored on AOL servers and ready to download at whatever speed your modem could handle.

It took AOL a long time to catch on to this, and even then, they couldn't keep up with the sheer number of fake accounts being created -- or, as the article points out, accounts made with phished credit cards, of which there were hundreds of thousands floating around and a never-ending supply of new ones as AOL's userbase grew. They effectively hosted the warez scene throughout the 90s, until residential broadband became available and 10-100mbps was common in places like Sweden and Singapore, at which point the scene shifted to IRC and self-hosted top sites (i.e. private FTPs).

It was a remarkably simple solution to a hosting problem, and the folks who organized it all will never get enough credit for their contribution toward creating a generation of graphics experts, for example, who couldn't afford the crazy prices of Photoshop or 3ds Max, but were able to use pirated copies to develop those skills and turn them into careers.

No, it's not relevant, because they are discussing completely different conversion metrics and at different scales. Also, your insistence that less than 1% of viewers will interact is based on the mistaken assumption that 100% of reported views represent someone who actually watched. Real life doesn't work like analytics.

About 1% of the people shown an ad (or any content) will even consciously acknowledge it, while approximately 1-3% of the remaining 1% will interact with it, and then 1-5% of that remaining group will actually buy the product. The 99% who didn't acknowledge its existence in the first place don't actually factor into anything other than how much you get charged for the ad.

The difference between the article and the OP's scenario, is that the OP already filtered the 99% and converted the rest. Now there is only one conversion left, which is to make them into paying customers, which is a much higher rate than 1% when you already have a captive audience.

That article isn't applicable, as it's discussing 1% of a total market, whereas the discussion at hand is about 1% of the site's current userbase.

The ~96kbps audio makes this unbearable, even if it does come up with reasonably good stations based on input. It just sounds awful.

> because nobody wants to spend literally days crossing the map

Weirdly, that's what every FFXI player did almost every day and for years, until they finally added fast(er) travel options in later expansions. Even using the Chocobo to increase run speed, it took 30+ minutes of travel to get to any end game content. And it was very easy to accidentally die along the way in places where nobody could resurrect you without also dying themselves, and then you would need to make the entire trip again. It was absolutely stupid and a complete waste of time, and yet I have nothing but fond memories of it.

I hate Facebook more than most, but I wouldn't automatically presume that the claims in the post are the result of malicious intent from human actors.

Much to everyone's surprise, over the past decade Facebook had real humans looking into reports whenever a basic algorithm couldn't make a simple determination. That has completely changed in the past two years and they've gone full ML -- and the results reflect that, terribly. Facebook is once again flooded with fake accounts pushing crypto scams and ads that are basically direct links to malware, and reporting those scams does absolutely nothing, because the scammers have always been (and likely always will be) smarter than any algorithm. Things are much like they were in the early days of Facebook, before human intervention cleaned most of that up.

The bigger concern I have with going fully automated, is the lack of security. I use Facebook Messenger to send long lists of keywords to a friend, so that I'll start (immediately) seeing ads for all of the startups related to those keywords. It's a great research tool, albeit incredibly disturbing and something that should probably be illegal. But there's a terrible side effect to this, which becomes very apparent when you get targeted by their algorithm for a particular keyword that gets abused by scammers.

In 2020 alone, I spent over 150 hours sending abuse reports to every hosting provider and domain registrar imaginable, all for the same guy using Facebook's ad system to distribute extortion malware under the guise of being a Windows desktop version of Clubhouse. Most of the companies responded within 72 hours, which I'd call somewhat acceptable, though I still wonder how many people lost their data or got conned out of money in each of those time periods. Facebook, however, never responded once or took action on any reports. It would take them weeks (sometimes months) to remove this person's ads, and would rarely ban the actual accounts. It finally "ended" when I repeatedly contacted their legal department, who also never responded (and why would they), but did seem to light a fire under someone on the security team.

And then he was back about four months later doing the exact same scam with different names, because all they did was add some filter for Clubhouse ads. He's still doing it, but it's an impossible battle if Facebook refuses to participate in the real world, so I've given up on reporting anything. It shouldn't have been my job to fix it in the first place.

You are conveniently ignoring that developers create apps which are sold in Google's marketplace, of which Google takes a minimum of 15%. They are making more per developer than $25. Please take your inflammatory nonsense elsewhere.

Even if Google were paying support engineers $100/hr, in what universe is the average developer going to need 50 hours of support per year? In reality, it's at most averaging to 2 hours, and typically only in situations where Google messed up and should really be fixing it for free anyway, because it was their mistake. So, at most, it would be a labor cost of $300/yr including benefits and taxes, and more realistically that number is much closer to $100/yr.

And that's pretending they don't already make obscenely high profits per developer, and can absolutely afford to provide the necessary support for these situations, which again, are largely their mistakes to begin with.

I just wanted to note that you should be applauded for your handling of this thread. So many people waste their launch by ignoring feedback and only responding with marketing jargon, but here you are asking new users questions about their experience, with the clear intention of making the experience better for them. Kudos to you!

Even without directly following Taylor's career outside of the context of Foo Fighters, this one hit harder than expected, made worse by the seemingly sudden nature of it. Sometimes it's easy to forget how much music actually means to us, until the people who made the music pass away, and then it becomes glaringly obvious.