btmiller

I suspect refis massively benefited. I reduced my rate from 3.75% to 2.625% and with a cash out!

Is this true? And if so, how long has The Verge been like this? I was always fond of the quality of their video productions (to make no judgment of their reviews).

HIMYM was still going strong beyond the 3rd season. People don’t like the ending, but seasons 4, 5, 6, and 7 were damn great.

Frankfurt perhaps?

The game changes in dimensions beyond synergies and quests. For instance, there are new runewords. D2 is the pinnacle ARPG with a die-hard community, so even minor changes to area levels, runewords, or skill attributes can open up all sorts of new possibilities.

I’d personally prefer if the gaming community wasn’t so monoculturally driven to a prescribed set of game attributes (e.g. end game content, DLC, battle royale, loot boxes, skins, sandbox, open world). D2 isn’t for everyone nor should it be :)

This comment settles it for me. You’re thoroughly way too hyperbolic in your assessment. If this was closer to reality you’d have been able to state your case in clear, realistic terms. That’s something no one has been able to do so far.

These were at least valid evidential concerns, not something completely made up.

That’s a pretty hyperbolic response. There’s always a risk that mismanaged use of energy results in us never reaching Kardashev Type 1 (i.e. we destroy the habitability of the planet before we get there).

So far for me: - Drizly - Stub Hub - Trustmark

> The market will correct itself when shitty applications with shitty UX don't get any sales

I think your assumption is too optimistic. The only way the market would correct itself in this situation is toward user hostility with easy signups but hard cancellations (e.g. New York Times). So yes there will be some market correction, but only in ways that increase sales at the cost of user tolerance.

I can imagine NA cuisine being no more unified than Mexican, Tex-Mex, New Mexican, Oaxacan, California Mexican, et. al. are under the category of “Mexican”. I grew up on Tex-Mex and I was dumbfounded at the sight of a wet burrito?? But you learn and grow :) and I’m sure any emergence of NA cuisine would be similar.

The oceans are pretty big though. Adding more cables right now isn’t a heavily constrained space. So yeah you have some giants laying their own. However, I don’t think that more privately owned links is necessarily a sign of power concentration, rather a symptom of it perhaps. You have these giants leveraging economies of scale to gain an advantage, and it’s not necessarily something a non-giant couldn’t do themselves if they were motivated enough. Example, if Meta didn’t own and operate Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp (i.e. regulators force the split of their social media platforms) they could conceivably still lay these new cables.

What impact would this have on elliptic curve cryptography?

Current plans are for it not to be serviced. Considering that it’s sitting way beyond the moon at L2, it’d have been out of each even for the shuttles when they were still in service.

I tend to agreed because I’m very likely to retire/be financially independent much, much earlier than 65 thanks to my tech career.

Silver lining is that I don't see any RSU compensation listed in my report! That's the biggest chunk of my earnings anyway, so that should be fair game during negotiations.

Look, she is a snake, but if Python can’t have true parallelism, neither should she :P

It’s easy to ignore that statement since it only really applies to the US. In most other markets Apple does not dominate on the order of >50%.

Another way to look at it would be to characterize the practice of monetizing surveillance as unethical such that it motivates Apple to make changes to prevent it. A revenue stream disappearing that never should have existed is a feature, not a bug IMO.

Really get annoyed when publications introduce an acronym yet never define it. That’s 101 of writing. Thanks for doing their work for them :)

Access to audiences beyond a handful in size are much rarer than what you can easily find online.

It brings me no pleasure in addressing this reality. Many conservatives are fine people, but the damage done by Republican media outlets is undeniable and it stifles advancement to the detriment of all.

This is why my comment was really about praising the potential of a good therapeutic. Political ideologies fade when all you can think about is survival, in contrast to preventative care which requires forethought.

Realities aside, this is why a therapeutic might be the best way out of the pandemic.

I fell victim to the memes! Thanks for the new knowledge :)

Who cares that Starship is a SpaceX property. Focus on the capability - which no one else has - and the ends - Hubble sitting in a museum instead of burning up in the lithosphere. You want to dislike SpaceX then go ahead, I don’t think anyone here would strongly discourage you from exploring that. But I truly challenge you to find another more economical solution to bring Hubble home.

Just as a reminder, HN isn’t a place where it’s acceptable to appeal to downvoters as a tactic for increasing the legitimacy of your comment.

While I’m in the doesn’t-mind-paying-for-multiple-subscriptions camp, I do feel like we’ve been here already and it was super clear to see that once all content was natively digital that we’d regress back literally to what we already had with channel bundles over cable. Seems most likely to me that it’s simply a newer generation of minds reencountering things the previous generation already experienced.

I was really disappointed/anxious/upset over Zuckerberg's response to the liability question. As the CEO, how does he not immediately understand the intent behind the question? This is Facebook's most pressing current issue and he chose to stick his head in the sand and pretend that a VR vision and rebrand will whisk the problems away?

Or I guess here's the reality of it: Zuckerberg, I can only assume intentionally, has seemed to master the art of slipping his way out of tough questions non-stop. He lies to governments, he lies to users, he lies to advertisers, he lies to tech journalists; all behind the vail of a vague notion of where Facebook's perceived* value is. I have never, ever seen him get pinned down - this is not a compliment, he deserves to face real and tough criticism (regulation too), but I can only guess that every audience that's questioned him exists on a scale of ignorant to apathetic (on the apathetic side of the scale, see for instance how Ben ends this interview with a quip on touching base in 10 years; Ben's no dummy, he probably just grew exhausted from Zuckerberg's non-stop slippery, indirect answers. Zuckerberg stuck to his ,,human" script.).

* I stopped participating in social media years ago and my quality of life has skyrocketed (I'm here on HN to talk with others in my industry, so I view this as work-related). No one in their right mind can look at their 10-year vision of a metaverse and truly believe that Facebook will be the herald of this new economy.

Humans are very emotional creatures. A quote from Interstellar which I rewatched recently comes to mind. Their robot TARS says this when asked why his honesty parameter is set to 90% instead of 100%: “Absolute honesty isn't always the most diplomatic nor the safest form of interact with human beings”

But they are the ones that have enabled the mass accessibility of many-to-many communication. That should come with great responsibility.