harles

> Windows has caused us a lot of issues with Upscayl

I’d turn that around. Sounds like Upscayl has caused a lot of issues for Windows users. Not developing on and doing little testing on Windows sure sounds like the problem to me.

Maybe. It is nice to see cash transactions and subscription models in the space. There’s a chance (maybe it’s slim) that new computing paradigms will bring new business models without ads. Maybe I’m just an optimist.

That’s certainly possible, but I’d expect licensing costs to dwarf bandwidth costs.

I’m not sure it’s a good business strategy, but I am glad to see ad money fueling more interesting tech than more profitable ads.

I’ve wondered for a while if Spotify skews playlists in favor of cheaper songs. I have no evidence of this, but it’d make business sense to use the equivalent of store brand music (even if that just means outsourced to a cheap agency) for generic study music playlists and such.

Exactly what I was looking for - thanks! Not earth shattering, but it’s neat to fill out our map of the neighborhood.

Pretty incredible feat of engineering (both back when it was launched and now). Does anyone know its current purpose? I’m curious if there’s anything we’re actively using it for or if it’s just a matter of “look for surprises”.

You can get angry and lash out as you are here or you can seek to improve. I’m sure Microsoft Word, Grammarly, or even ChatGPT would catch the vast majority of the mistakes. Not attempting to do any of those is a mark of low effort. That coupled with a lack of serious content made this a difficult read that offered little to no value.

And name calling and personal insults belong here? It was a poorly written piece of self promotion. You’re welcome to disagree but your response is the least HN I’ve seen in a long time here.

Waymo and Cruise have failed to scale and it doesn't look like they ever will. It's difficult to find a single article with the full context, but around 2017 as Waymo started giving limited rides to the public, everyone though the problem had been solved. There was a flood of startups hoping to be a strong second mover in the space, and then basically nothing. Expectations have shifted over time, but 7 years later and there's been only small incremental progress.

> In any case, the Mercedes system is what's known as a conditionally autonomous system.

Yes, but it's significant progress if it reaches consumer hands. This sounds like the typical Waymo marketing of "you can't get to Level 4 through Level 3". I bought into this at one point, but Waymo and Cruise have demonstrated that going straight to Level 4 with $100k+ (probably much more than that) of sensors and corresponding maintenance doesn't scale.

> As of April 11, there were 65 Mercedes autonomous vehicles available for sale in California ... One of those has since been sold, which marks the first sale of an autonomous Mercedes in California ...

Those are pretty small numbers and strike me more as them testing the waters. It's neat to see some potential in the space after what felt like a total collapse with Waymo and Tesla especially not living up to expectations. It's not clear how good the tech is here, but it's a political victory for the space if nothing else.

California being the most populous state is a pretty big deal. I'm guessing the focus on two states is more a result of Mercedes' focus on geofencing/mapping test areas than anything.

There’s a difference between quirky English and incomprehensible English. If someone has poor English but their point is understandable, there’s not much to complain about. This article however falls squarely in the bucket of poor English and possibly proofing inhibiting comprehension. If someone aspires to be a journalist in English as the author claims to be, communication and comprehensible English are critical. It’s not a nitpick - there are plenty of sections where it’s not clear what the author is trying to say like:

> Although iOS is better served with good apps, some Android exclusives are missing.

The broader point here is that this appears to be a very low quality/effort article, and so question was genuine: what am I missing? It clearly resonated with some folks.

I’d appreciate someone pointing out what the significance of this article is. The whole thing seemed like platitudes in borderline unreadable English - but there must be some reason it reached the front page.

This reminds me of the Dmitry Sklyarov case from 2001 [0]. Adobe is a bear I would not want to poke.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd.

> you can't make a feature until everyone agrees

Except that’s exactly how the web is supposed to work and the reason Google was able to build a giant search business in the first place. This is absolutely them shitting in the punch bowl. We made plenty of progress without fragmentation.

I’d actually call that a good bar. If you’re looking 5-10 years down the line for consumers, it’s reasonable. If you think the results can influence hardware directions sooner than that (for better performance) it’s also reasonable.

It’s more that energy usage isn’t a useful metric - because trying to minimize it leads in entirely different direction (and pretty dark).

Ideally those 1b people would contribute value elsewhere in the world, leading to a big net gain rather than just displacement - and we’re hopefully getting bigger gains for the energy invested. Of course that’s ignoring likely concentration of value, etc.

You mean in token form?

How much energy do 1 billion people consume? I don’t think this is the criteria we should use.

I was at Google during the reader shutdown. It was absolutely a top down decision and not a lack of support due to incentives. The execs tried to frame it as an infra problem/cost of migration, but neither myself nor any of my coworkers believed that at the time.

It was very telling during TGIF that week when Larry and Sergey skipped literal pages worth of top questions about it and refused to give direct answers as to why it was shut down.

The Reader shutdown coupled with Google+ reaching its tendrils into every product (“hey, real identities are great for YouTube users!”) at the time convinced me “don’t be evil” may have been a goal, but “don’t miss out on profit” was a requirement.

I’d prefer exponential backoff. Double the sentence each time. But given the choice of three strikes or a slap on the wrist, I’d take three strikes enforcement.

Right, but it does change how I’d expect the results to be attributed, with brand not being the relevant predictor.

> This may surprise you …

That certain doesn’t seem in the HN spirit. Can you elaborate on what that has to do with brands being a proxy for hidden variables?

There’s definitely bias in these numbers. I’m not sure what’s at play, but the lowest accidents per driver being from brands that no longer exist (Pontiac, Mercury, and Saturn) certainly looks suspicious. Maybe these are good proxies for age and filter out new drivers?

Can someone explain why this is interesting? It looks like a directionally interesting anti-aging study, but without any major breakthroughs. I'm curious what folks upvoting see in the study that I'm missing.

The editorialized title here seems deceptive at best. Near as I can tell from the tiny post, the user in question was restricted for something and then posted screenshots of trying to post links after being restricted. Unless we live in a world of time reversed causality, there’s no evidence for that sensational headline.

Waymo has driven 20m+ autonomous miles btw. [0] The 1 million mile number appears to be rides with external passengers, but the first sources I found lead to dead links, so who knows.

Anyways, quite a difference. I’m not sure where the threshold should be set for proving safety. I recall the number for provable safety being something like 20bn+ miles, so no one is close if it’s set there.

[0]: https://waymo.com/waymo-driver/

I haven’t read the paper, but I wonder how well they control for economic status. I’d expect the better off a family is the less lead they have in their life - and I’d expect economic status to actually be a cause of better education, health, incarceration, etc.

The title of this story doesn’t seem to match the content. This seems like a proactive move to prevent individual publishers from spamming many many submissions - and even then, they’re willing to make exceptions.

> While we have not seen a spike in our publishing numbers, in order to help protect against abuse, we are lowering the volume limits we have in place on new title creations. Very few publishers will be impacted by this change and those who are will be notified and have the option to seek an exception.